Dismissed

Vijay Bansal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Mar 2014CWP/6169/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL, the petitioner challenged notifications amending Punjab and Haryana control restriction acts. The Court dismissed the petition after the State of Haryana assured passage of a Bill amending the acts, and the States of Punjab and Chandigarh argued against extending restrictions due to administrative policies.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of without granting any relief to the petitioner.

Vijay Bansal Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.6169 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 24.03.2014

¶3

Vijay Bansal, Advocate

¶4

…..Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI

¶9

Present: Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

Mr. Harsimran S. Sethi, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab

¶11

Mr. Ajay Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana

¶12

Mr. Shikhar Verm a, Advocate for U.T. of Chandigarh

¶13

SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE : (Oral)

¶14

The present petition is styled as a public interest litigation, filed by an Advocate stated to be practicing in the District Courts at Panchkula, seeking to challenge notifications dated 30.10.2012 (Annexures P/ 9 and P/ 10) issued by the Haryana Government seeking to am end, vide Annexure P/ 9, the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 in its application to the State of Haryana whereby Clause (a) of Section 15 of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 stands omitted. Vide notification-Annexure P/ 10, Clause (a)(a) of Section 22 of the said Act of

¶15

Chand Parkash 2014.03.25 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CW P- 6169 - 2010

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

1963 is sought to be omitted and sub-section (1) of Section 25 substituted. The additional/ sequitur prayer is that the respondents should extend the Lal Dora of the abadi deh of the villages in their respective territories especially the villages notified under the Periphery Act of 1952 and the 1963 Act and also take further steps in view of the implementation of the provisions of Article 243-ZD of the Constitution of India.

¶19

On 25.11.2013, a stand was taken by the learned Additional

¶20

Advocate General for State of Haryana, as under: -

¶21

“ Learned counsel for the State of Haryana also submits that the Department has all along been treating the area falling within the Lal Dora to be coterminous with the area falling within the Abadi Deh, but it has come to the notice of the Department that Abadi Deh is an area comprised within the phirni of the village as determined by the Tribunal constituted under Section 12- C of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 in appeal titled as Pritam Singh Versus LTCP decided on 21.9.2000. An endeavour to challenge this by filing a writ petition did not bring fruit and SLP was also withdrawn on 5.11.2011. It has, thus, been recommended that the word Abadi deh may be defined accordingly. There are stated to be villages where phirni of the village does not exist and the proposal is that Abadi deh may be defined as the area falling within the Lal Dora till the phirni of the village is defined by Revenue Authorities. This proposal is stated to have received sanction and is to be placed in the next Session of the House.”

¶22

Learned Additional Advocate General for State of Haryana states today before us that a Bill was introduced before the Vidhan Sabha in terms aforesaid which has been passed and is now awaiting assent of the Governor of Haryana and with this amendment the provisions of the two Acts would not operate upon the village areas comprised within the

¶23

Chand Parkash 2014.03.25 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CW P- 6169 - 2010

¶25

- 3 -

¶26

phirni of the village fixed at the time of consolidation under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948.

¶27

Insofar as the State of Punjab is concerned, the issue of extension of abadi deh of villages has received the attention of GMADA in the periphery area of Chandigarh. The matter is stated to have been placed before the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Developm ent Board in its 26^th meeting on 28.5.2013 and the final decision is that there is no need to carry out such extensions which would benefit only the private colonizers instead of local villagers. It is stated that the master plan has already come into operation in 2009. Thus also the requirem ent does not exist.

¶28

The stand of the U.T of Chandigarh is that there should be no extension of Lal Dora as the Administration has limited land and the extension in Lal Dora would be counter-productive and is an endeavour only to obtain plotting of agricultural land by villagers not for their own families but for dealing with such carved out plots unauthorizedly. In order to discourage unauthorised construction in periphery areas, notification have been issued on 25.9.2007, 8.4.2008 and 25.5.2009 whereby the provisions of the Periphery Act of 1952 were extended beyond the abadi area of villages, Maloya, Palsora, Kajheri, Dadumajra and Hallomajra. It has also been observed that it was not practical to apply the Capital Act to the areas of villages which have been constructed in haphazard manner and illegal constructions are stated to have taken place which is against the very spirit of extension of Lal Dora and the objectives and reasons of the Periphery Act. Thus, where residential

¶29

Chand Parkash 2014.03.25 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CW P- 6169 - 2010

¶31

- 4 -

¶32

structures have been raised by original owners and inhabitants themselves for their own habitation/ settlement, the matter can be considered on case-to-case basis, but there was no proposal to withdraw the application of the Periphery Act. It was necessary to maintain the unique character of the Chandigarh city with the Master Plan Committee being seized of the m atter. In fact, no dem and is stated to have been made by residents of villages in this behalf and, thus, it is really a proxy litigation styled as a public interest litigation by people having vested interests.

¶33

We have perused the affidavits filed and examined the stand taken today.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he would still like to press the relief. We, thus, called upon him to first read the order passed on 25.11.2013 in the context of the stand taken by the State of Haryana. Learned counsel states that he has not read the order nor he has a copy of the sam e. We fail to appreciate as to how can he state that something survives qua the State of Haryana especially in view of what we had culled out on 25.11.2013 in his presence and the stand taken today.

¶35

As far as the State of Punjab and U.T. of Chandigarh are concerned, they have already explained the rationale in not extending the abadi area, a matter of administrative decision taken for good cause and thus, there is no reason for this Court to interfere in a PIL petition.

¶36

We are, thus, of the view that closure ought to be put to the matter keeping in mind the stand taken today before us by the learned

¶37

Chand Parkash 2014.03.25 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

CW P- 6169 - 2010

¶39

- 5 -

¶40

Additional Advocate General, Haryana and the affidavits already on record of State of Punjab and U.T. of Chandigarh.

¶41

The petition accordingly stands disposed of.