IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 9488 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: November 26, 2008 Shanti Devi and another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Saurav Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition is directed against order dated 13.6.2007 (P-8), passed by the Tribunal constituted under Act No. 41 of 1963. The Tribunal has upheld its earlier order dated 5.8.2005 and has refused to review the same (P-6). The petitioners have also sought quashing of order dated 5.8.2005 (P-6). C.W.P. No. 9488 of 2007 2. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner has claimed that the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Area (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) would not apply to him because there is an entry in the revenue record for the year 1962-63, showing that there was a Dhaba (indigenous restaurant) over an area measuring 0.9 marla. The Tribunal found that it was a stray entry and there was no reflection of any building over any piece of land in the sale deed dated 19.1.1971. The whole land comprised in Khasra No. 102/4, 5 and 103/1, measuring 3 Kanals 10 Marlas is shown to be under cultivation. The Tribunal has further found that the petitioner failed to place on record revenue entries for the preceding or succeeding years. Accordingly, the claim made by him was rejected with the following observations:- “……In the instant case, it is not the case of the appellant that the constructed portion is not within 30 meters of the road reservation of this schedule road. Appellant has primarily built up his case on the basis of an entry in copy of jamabandi for the year 1962-63 pertaining to area measuring 9 Marla. Appellant has not placed on record copies of jamabandies of the later years or any other documentary evidence in support of this plea. In the absence of any material documents on record I find no merit in this plea of the appellant. A Building Inspector of the department visited the site and noticed constructional activity at the site. On receipt of 2 C.W.P. No. 9488 of 2007 his information; show cause notice was issued apprising him of violation of Section 3, 6 and 7(i) of the Act. For reasons known to the appellant; he neither filed reply nor come present to contest or explain. A stray entry in Revenue Record cannot be taken to be conclusive especially when the same is not reflected in subsequent revenue papers nor even in the sale deed dated 19.1.1971. Otherwise too, present construction is over an area measuring 3 Kanal 1 Marla. Thus as the appellant had not sought permission for change of land use before raising construction upon it, the same has rightly been held to be violative of Section 6 & 7(i) of the Act. Since in the present case the constructed portion is within 30 meters of the road reservation of the scheduled road the same is violative of Section 3 of the Act as well. No other point has been pressed. ……” 3. The aforementioned order was challenged by the wife of Ranjit Singh, who had gone before the Tribunal against the show cause notice with a prayer for setting aside order dated 23.4.1990, passed under Section 12(2) of the Act, by filing C.W.P. No. 15895 of 2005. This Court permitted her to file a review application before the Tribunal and disposed of the petition, vide order dated 10.8.2006 (P-7). The review application filed by Ranjit Singh has also been dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order dated 13.6.2007 (P-8). The Tribunal has dealt with the following contentions in the review and 3 C.W.P. No. 9488 of 2007 rejected the same. Firstly it was said that the construction belonging to the petitioner is beyond 30 meters of the road. The argument was rejected as it was not supported by any evidence. Further argument was that the area fall within the municipal limits and the Director had no jurisdiction to pass order under Section 12(3) of the Act. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner did not produce any notification on the record. It went to observe that even if there is any notification there was no bar by virtue of provision made in Section 203C and 203G of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and the provisions have been quoted in the order. A further submission that in some civil suit a statement was made by the Sub Divisional Officer, PWD (B&R) that the building constructed by the petitioner was not to be demolished and the civil suit was withdrawn on the basis of aforementioned statement on 9.5.2000, has also been rejected because such a statement was not to validate any illegal construction. In that regard, the Tribunal has quoted observations of their Lordships’ of Hon’ble the Supreme Court made in the case of M/s Royal Parasdise Hotel (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 2006 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 289. Another submission of the petitioner that 9 marlas of structure as per the jamabandi for the year 1960, which existed prior to the notification of the Controlled Area may be permitted, was also rejected because no material was placed on record to reverse the finding recorded in the order passed on 5.8.2005 (P-6). It may be re- called that in its order dated 5.8.2005, the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that there was no regular entry and on the basis of 4 C.W.P. No. 9488 of 2007 one stray entry it could not be accepted that there existed on the land in dispute a Dhaba (indigenous restaurant). 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper book with their able assistance and find that there is no legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, an entry in the record of right in accordance with law could be presumed to be true but it would not confer any proprietary rights. In the present case, the Tribunal has repeatedly asked the petitioner to place on record the copies of revenue record for the subsequent and preceding years to show existence of construction of a Dhaba in the land in dispute. The petitioner failed to produce any such record, which led to the conclusion that there was only a stray entry, which would not constitute basis for recording a finding of fact that construction was in existence before promulgation of the Act, which declared the Controlled Area. The writ petition is wholly without merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) November 26, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 5