Dismissed

Sneh Yadav v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC1 May 2024CWP/8673/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of exemption for a mushroom unit under the proviso to Section 6 of the Haryana Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Act, 1963. The Court held the petition premature as an appeal against a related show cause notice was pending, and dismissed it with liberty to re-challenge after appellate decision.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to re-approach the writ court if the Appellate Authority declines relief in the pending appeal.

Sneh Yadav Vs State of Haryana and Others — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CWP No. 8673 of 2024 -1-

¶2

2024:PHHC:060011-DB

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

(116) CWP No.8673 of 2024(O&M) Date of Decision: 01.05.2024

Smt. Sneh Yadav

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA

¶11

Present: Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ****

¶13

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner challenges Annexures P-14 and P-15, wherebys the petitioner’s application for exemption being granted in respect of the purported Mushroom unit, thus, in terms of the proviso to Section 6 of the The Haryana Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘the Act of 1963’), rather became rejected. The said provisions are extracted hereinafter:-

¶15

“6. Erection or re-erection of buildings etc. in controlled areas. — Except as provided hereinafter, no person shall erect or orerect any building or make or extend any excavation or lay out any means or access to a road in a controlled area save in accordance with the plans and the restrictions and conditions

¶16

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.05.03 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

CWP No. 8673 of 2024

¶18

2024:PHHC:060011-DB

¶19

-2-

¶20

referred to in section 5 and with the previous permission of the Director:

¶21

Provided that no such permission shall be necessary for erection or re-erection of any building if such building is used or is to be used for agricultural purpose or purposes subservient to agriculture:

¶22

Provided further that nothing in this section shall apply to a building constructed along the extension of the scheduled road located in the limit of the local authority and which was in existence immediately before the commencement of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development (Haryana Amendment) Ordinance, 2009, on payment of such fee, as may be prescribed.”

¶23

The present petitioner claimed that no permission was required for erection or re-erection of the building, whereins, a Mushroom Plant is installed, as the same sub-served, thus within the ambit of above extracted provisions, rather agricultural purposes. Therefore, he submits that the impugned Annexure P-15, as made on the application concerned, thus seeking the said exemption, but is legally flawed.

¶24

Be that as it may, a final show cause notice as becomes enclosed in Annexure P-9 was issued upon the present petitioner, wherebys she was asked to restore the lands to their original state but after making demolitions of the constructions as were made on the disputed site. It is fairly conceded at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the

¶25

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.05.03 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

CWP No. 8673 of 2024 -3-

¶27

2024:PHHC:060011-DB

¶28

said order has been challenged before the Appellate Authority concerned, and, the said challenge is subjudice.

¶29

Nonetheless, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues, that irrespective of the said appellate motion, being subjudice before the Appellate Authority, yet the instant petition challenging Annexure P-15, whereby a declining order, became passed by the competent authority, in respect of the espoused exemption, as claimed in terms of the proviso to Section 6 of the Act of 1963, thereby he contends that since the said order was passed in an appellate motion. Therefore, he further argues that the remedy to challenge Annexure P-14, is only, through the filing of the instant writ petition. In sequel, he further argues that the appellate remedy canvassed against show cause notice Annexure P-9, and, the instant remedy canvassed against Annexure P-14, rather are distinct and independent of each other, and therebys even if the relevant appellate motion is subjudice, before the Appellate Authority, yet this Court is required to be entertaining the instant writ petition and is also not required to be dismissing the same on the ground, that it is prematurely made, given the relevant appellate motion being subjudice before the competent Appellate Authority.

¶30

The learned Additional Advocate General vehemently opposes the above made prayer and submits that on account of the appellate motion being subjudice before the Appellate Authority, besides when there being inter-dependence inter se Annexure P-14 and the appellate motion raised against Annexure P-9, which is yet undecided. Consequently, he argues that in case this writ petition is entertained and any order is passed, whereby impugned Annexure P-14 is set aside, thereby the Appellate Authority shall

¶31

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.05.03 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶32

CWP No. 8673 of 2024 -42024:PHHC:060011-DB

¶33

be presented with a fait accompli, thus to make an order in terms of the order assumingly passed in favour of the present petitioner. Resultantly, he further argues that thereby the stance of the respondent would become gravely prejudiced.

¶34

After deeply analyzing the above submissions made before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court agrees with the submissions addressed before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General, and accordingly, proceeds to declare that instant writ petition is prematurely instituted, and thereby it is also mis-constituted.

¶35

The reason for making the above inference is sparked from the factum that when the validity of the drawing of Annexure P-9, is yet subjudice before the Appellate Authority, and, when the causes of action as embodied thereins are inter-dependent with the one enclosed in Annexure P- 14. Resultantly, in case this Court assumingly entertains the writ petition and/or proceeds to assumingly allow the writ petition, thereby, the Appellate Authority seized with the appellate motion directed against Annexure P-9, thus would be presented with a fait accompli. Consequently, therebys the respondent but shall be prejudiced in the relevant appeal which has been directed against Annexure P-9 by the present petitioner before the Appellate Authority. In consequence, at this stage, the writ petition is mis-constituted and resultantly, it is dismissed but leaving liberty to the petitioner to, in case the Appellate Authority declines relief to the petitioner in the appellate motion, thereupon it being open to the petitioner to remake a challenge to the said declining decision, thus through hers re-accessing the writ Court. It

¶36

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.05.03 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶37

CWP No. 8673 of 2024 -52024:PHHC:060011-DB

¶38

is further clarified that in case an expeditious lawful decision favourable to the present petitioner is made by the Appellate Authority, thus seized with the appellate motion, thereupon unless a challenge is thrown thereto, at the instance of the respondent in the instant writ petition, thereby the decision on the said appellate motion is directed to also govern Annexure P-15, but only on an affirmative order on the relevant motion being yet made by this Court. The above is so required as both Annexures P-15 and Annexure P-9 relate to the same land and also relate to almost common causes of action and also both relate to those claimed reliefs which become rested in terms of the proviso supra.

¶39

In view of the afore made observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶40

(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE

¶41

	(LALIT BATRA) JUDGE
MAY 01, 2024
d.gulati
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶42

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.05.03 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Sneh Yadav v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sneh Yadav v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nihal Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Parbhu Dayal Vs the Collector Rohtak and Ors.

Jang Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jaswant Kaur & Anr. Vs Addl. Director Panchayat & Ors.

Gagandeep Sharma and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Reena Rani and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others