IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4820 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.7.2010 Avtar Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.M.S.Rakkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.P.S.Baath, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Reeta Kohli, Addl.A.G. Punjab Mr.Prem Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3 Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed this writ petition to lay challenge to 12.5 Acre Scheme framed under the provisions of Punjab Town Planning Act, 1922 (in short the Act). To acquire land for that Scheme, notification under section 36 of the act was issued on 27.6.2006. It has come on record that further notification/declaration under section 42 of the act was not issued. It is prayer of the petitioner that directions be issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to sanction his building plans which are pending with the above said authorities since 27.12.2007. It is apparent from the records that at one time, the Improvement Trust passed a resolution No.41 on 13.8.2009, making a request to the State government to drop that scheme. Probably in view of issuance of notification under section 36 of the act, in the year 2006, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not sanctioning building plans submitted by CWP No.4820 of 2010 the petitioner. It was specific stand of respondent No.3 that a resolution has been passed making request to the State government that because period of more than one year has elapsed from the date of issuance of notification under section 36 of the act, so the scheme be dropped. On 17.3.2010, following contention of counsel for the petitioner was noticed by this Court:- “Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the land of the petitioner is not under any acquisition and respondent No.3 has not been granting sanction to the site plans submitted for raising construction on the land by the petitioner.” The State counsel was directed to get instructions as to why action has not been taken on the resolution passed by the Improvement Trust. In response to notice issued, the State government has put on record a copy of the letter dated 12.7.2010 which reads thus: - “To The Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Ropar. Memo No.8/57/09(21)-1LG2/ Dated, Chandigarh, the 12th July, 2010 Subject:- Proceedings dated 13.8.2009 of the Improvement Trust, Ropar - Resolution No.41 regarding. Please refer to your letter No.1434 dated 17.8.2009 and 1669 dated 6.11.2009 on the subject noted above. 2. The resolution No.41 dated 13.8.2009 is approved in the sense that when the scheme has already been lapsed, then the question of dropping the scheme does not arise. 2 CWP No.4820 of 2010 3. The trust is directed to consider the renotification of the scheme under section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 within the shortest possible time following due procedure of law. Trust is further directed to send report on the following points within a period of 10 days positively:- a) Who is responsible for allowing the notified scheme to lapse? b) Who are responsible for illegal constructions to come up on the notified scheme? Sd/- Additional Secretary.” A reading of the letter clearly indicates that no scheme is in operation. So far as issuance of notification again to acquire land for that scheme is concerned, direction has also been issued to the Improvement Trust. Be that as it may, as on today no development scheme is in operation for the area, in which land of the petitioner is situated. Counsel for the respondents, except raising minor technicalities, have failed to indicate any other legal flaw on the basis of which, sanctioning of the building plans of the petitioner can be denied. In view of above, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to sanction building plans of the petitioner as per law. If anything remains to be done at the part of the petitioner, the same be intimated to him within a period of seven days in writing. Thereafter the building plans be sanctioned within the stipulated period as envisaged under the provisions of the Municipal Counsel Building By Laws, 1997. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 13.07.2010 (Augustine George Masih) 3 CWP No.4820 of 2010 gk Judge 4