CWP No.16534 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16534 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.03.2011 **** Rajinder Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. RS Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. RS Khosla, Advocate and Mr. Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.16534 of 2008; 7685, 7687 & 12387 of 2009 as common issues are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.16534 of 2008. (2). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 06.08.2008 (Annexure P25) passed by the PUDA declining compounding of the offence under Section 38 (2) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Act 1995 (in short, ‘the Act’). The petitioner is being CWP No.16534 of 2008.doc - 2 – prosecuted under Section 38 (2) of the Act on the allegations that the agricultural land situated in village Peeru Banda, Tehsil and District Ludhiana has been sold to different persons by carving out plots without obtaining requisite license in accordance with the provisions of Act. An FIR No.401 dated 05.12.2002 under various provisions of the Act has been lodged against the petitioner at Police Station Haibowal, District Ludhiana. The petitioner while facing prosecution made a representation to the competent authority to take lenient view on the same pattern as was taken in the case of similarly- situated persons and consequently compound the alleged offence. The same having been declined that he has approached this Court. (3). One of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the plots were carved out and sold in the year 1993- 94 when the 1995 Act had not come into force. The other contention is that Section 38 of the Act contemplates compounding of the offence before the actual prosecution is launched. (4). These cases were adjourned from time to time as it was stated on behalf of the respondents that the matter was under the active consideration of the State Government to take a fresh policy decision regarding laying down the CWP No.16534 of 2008.doc - 3 – parameters for compounding of the offences committed under the Act. (5). The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 45 read with sub-Section (2) of Section 38 of the Act has now issued a Notification dated 09.12.2010 whereby Rule 31 has been added to the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations (First Amendment) Rules, 1995, inter alia, laying down the criteria for compounding of the offences under the Act. Suffice it to mention here that the compounding of offences committed under the Act has been liberalized subject to certain conditions to be fulfilled by a Developer who has set up unauthorized colony in violation of the provisions of the Act. (6). Some of the petitioners are not colonizers and are agriculturist/owners who have sold their lands without any objection raised by the Revenue Authorities though in small pieces carved out as plots. They have pointed out several instances where the State Government has taken a lenient view and compounded the offences qua such agriculturists. (7). Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the writ petition(s) is/are disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall apply for compounding of the offence(s) in the light of the CWP No.16534 of 2008.doc - 4 – Notification dated 09.12.2010 and whosoever fulfills the criteria laid down therein, the case(s) against him/them shall stand compounded as per the said Notification subject to the conditions laid down therein. (8). Those petitioners who are not Developers/Colonisers and are not covered by the Notification, may apply to the competent authority, who in turn is directed to consider their representation(s) sympathetically and if so required, by relaxing the clauses regarding the width of the road to be provided by them. I say so for the reason that such petitioner being not the colonizers are in no position to lay down that no such road can be laid by them. The competent authority shall take appropriate decision in the individual cases within a period of four months from the date of submission of the application(s). (9). Till then further prosecution shall remain stayed. (10). Let a dasti copy of this order be handed over to Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, learned DAG Punjab for information and necessary action. 30.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge