CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16602 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 25 ,2011 M/s Aastha Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited, New Delhi .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Ajay Kamal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the alignment of proposed V-2 road as given in the final drawing dated 14.12.2007 in final development plan for Dharuhera. This approach is made upon rejection of his application for change of land use, which has been declined. The petitioner-Company claims to be owner in possession CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16602 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: of a land measuring 76 kanals 4 marlas in the revenue estate of Village Khatawali, Sub-Tehsil Dharuhera, District Rewari, by virtue of sale deed dated 3.2.2006. Previously, this land was owned by M/s Orient Paper and Industries Limited, who had purchased this land measuring 23.425 acres in the area 1980. This land was acquired by the Government in the year 1982 but was released on 9.4.1986. On 14.3.1986, the Government had permitted the change of land use of 13.9 acres to Orient Paper and Industries Limited as this land was falling in industrial Zone. The said Company has raised construction and has commenced production. Through a notification dated 22.7.1996, the Government has proposed to acquire a land measuring 9.1 acres for public purpose, namely, for providing approach road to industrial plots. The Orient Paper and Industries Limited challenged this notification by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 7997 of 1997, which was allowed on 28.8.1998. On 19.2.2001, respondent-HUDA raised a demand, asking for development charges amounting to Rs.1,02,23,350/-. The Orient Paper was asked to deposit 25% of the costs within 30 days and for depositing the remaining in four equal instalments within 120 days. This demand was again challenged by filing a writ petition, making a grievance that change of land use has not been allowed to the Company for a land measuring 9.525 acres over which it can not carry out construction. This writ petition, however, was dismissed as withdrawn. Ultimately, the demand was revised and the petitioner company has deposited the same on 1.6.2006. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16602 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: On 18.9.2006, draft development plan 2021 A.D of Dharuhera was issued by the Town and Country Planning Department. In this proposed road link to industrial area developed by HUDA passes through the land owned by the petitioner-Company. Thirty days period was available for filing objections to the draft plan but the petitioner did not file any objection. The petitioner contends that no khasra numbers have been mentioned in the notification for identification of alignment of the proposed road and so objections could not be filed. Final development plan was accordingly issued on 28.12.2007 and the proposed V-2 road passes through the land owned by the petitioner. Complaining that the petitioner had deposited external development charges and so would be entitled to change of land use. The petitioner says that the order, rejecting the application for change of land use is illegal and unfair. The petitioner has accordingly filed this writ petition before this Court. In the separate replies filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that prayer of the petitioner for change of land use was rejected on 16.4.2008, against which the petitioner had an opportunity of filing an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, which he has not availed. It is also stated that the final development plan has been published and the site in question falls within the alignment of proposed 60 meters wide outer peripheral V-2 road with a wide green belt on either side of the road. The petitioner admittedly did not file any objection to the draft development plan and, thus, it is stated that it would be estopped from challenging the development plan notified in the gazette on 28.12.2007. It is also stated that final CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16602 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: development plan was published after incorporating suggestions and objections filed by various individuals and companies and the change of land use as prayed can not be granted as the land falls under the reserved roads and green belts. It is further pointed out that the change of land use is permitted to the owners, if the land is put to some specific purpose and development of the project in an integrated manner as per the existing development plan provisions. No such consideration would arise in this case. It is also pointed out that any sub division of land is not permitted and any such action, leads to automatic cancellation of change of land use permission. Accordingly, any permission, which was sought by M/s Orient Paper either for sale of land or change of project, has been in contravention of and in violation of the Rules and accordingly the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. I have heard the counsel for the parties. Except for making reference to the facts, the counsel could not point out any infirmity in the development plan, which would call for any interference in realignment of the road. In fact, the development plan has been made after inviting due objections from general public and now V-2 road is incorporated alongwith green belt on either side of the road, which is good for general public at large. The petitioner in fact is not the original owner of the land and is a subsequent purchaser from the Orient Paper, which had remained unsuccessful in challenging the demand raised for development purposes. Merely because the petitioner had deposited some development charges would not mean that they have acquired a right CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16602 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: for change of land use, especially so when this will lead to violation of the development plan, which has been finally published. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. April 25,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE