M/S. ROYAL PARASDISE HOTEL (P) LTD. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 25-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M/S. ROYAL PARASDISE HOTEL (P) LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 25, 2006 
B 
[G.P. MATHUR, P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN AND DALVEER 
BHANDARI, JJ.) 
Lands and Buildings 
C 
Punjab Scheduled Road and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated 
Development) Act, 1963: Sections 3, 6, 7(1), JO and 12. 
Urban areas-Regulated development-Constructions made in violation 
of /aw-Regularization-Permissibility of-Offending construction put up in a 
controlled area in defiance of the provisions of law and directions to stop 
D such unauthorized construction-But the unauthorized construction was not 
stopped-Order under S. 12(2) was passed to remove the unauthorized 
construction-Claim for compounding and regularization of the unauthorized 
construction rejected by High Court-Correctness of-Held: The construction 
was made in the teeth of the notices and the directions to stop the unauthorized 
E construction-Those who defY the law would not be permitted to reap the 
benefit of their defiance of law-Such deliberate violations cannot be 
compounded and regularized-Marginal or insignificant accidental violations 
unconsciously made can alone qualify for regularization-Hence, High Court 
rightly rejected the claim for regularization. 
F 
The predecessor of the appellant had received a notice under Section 
12 of the Punjab Scheduled Road and Controlled Areas (Restriction of 
Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 informing him of contravention of 
Section 3 or Section 6 and of violation of Section 7(1) and Section 10 of 
the Act and directing him to stop further construction. When it was found 
that he was defying the direction to stop, an order was passed under 
G Section 12(2) of the Act directing him to remove the unauthorized 
construction. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court 
claiming compounding or regularization of the constructions, which was 
dismissed. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
I-I 
396 
ROY AL PARASDISE HOTEL (P) LTD. r. ST ATE OF HAR Y ANA 
3 97 
HELD: 1. The fact remains that the construction was made in the A 
teeth of the notices and the directions to stop the unauthorized 
construction. Thus, the predecessor of the appellant put up the offending 
construction in a controlled area in defiance of the provisions of law 
preventing such a construction and in spite of notices and orders to stop 
the construction activity. The constructions put up are thus illegal and B 
unauthorized and put up in defiance of law. The appellant is only an 
assignee from the person who put up such a construction and his present 
attempt is to defeat the statute and the statutory scheme of protecting the 
sides of highways in the interest of general public and moving traffic on 
such highways. Therefore, this is a fit case for refusal of interference by 
this Court against the decision declining the regularization sought for by C 
the appellant Such violations cannot be compounded and the prayer of 
the appellant was rightly rejected by the authorities and the High Court 
was correct in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. It is time 
that the message goes aboard that those who defy the law would not be 
permitted to reap the benefit of their defiance of law and it is the duty of 
High Courts to ensure that such violators of law are not rewarded. The D 
High Court was, therefore, fully justified in refusing to interfere in the 
matter. The High Court was rightly conscious of its duty to ensure that 
the violators of law do not get away with it. (401-B-Fl 
2. No authority administering municipal laws and other laws like the E 
Punjab Scheduled Road and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated 
Development) Act, 1963 can encourage such violations. Even otherwise, 
compounding is not to be done when the violations are deliberate, designed, 
reckless or motivated. Marginal or insignificant accidental violations 
. unconsciously made after trying to comply with all requirements of the 
law can alone qualify for regularization which is not the rule, but a rare F 
exception. The authorities and the High Court were hence right in refusing 
the request of the appellant. (401-F, GJ 
3. Even if subsequently a Municipality Act has been extended, the 
illegality and violation of the Act cannot be condoned by the Authorities ,..., 
under that Act or by any Court administering law and justice and no 
0 
authority, whether the highways authority or the municipal authority, is 
entitle

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.