RAJINDER SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 02-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

'-
RAJINDER SINGH 
v. 
,~ 
-
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 2, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. _MATHUR AND 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Town and Country Planning : ' 
A 
B 
Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of C 
Unregulated Development Act, 1963-Sections 3 to 8-Action against 
purchaser for putting up construction against the terms of the Act in 
controlled area-Order of removal of unauthorised construction by the 
Authority-Plea that on account of failure to publish declaration in two 
newspapers under section 4(2), notification of declaration issued under D 
section 4(1) notifying area as controlled area inchoate and as such 
construction in the so called controlled area could not be objected to-
Held: Requirement of section 4(2) is not mandatory-Failure to publish 
in two newspapers would not render the notification of declaration inchoate 
and area does not become controlled area-Delayed publication of the 
contents of declaration also would not nullify the declaration-Object sought 
to be achieved by the Act and its Scheme is t<? be seen.:._Purpos~ of declaring 
an area, a controlled area cannot be defeated by recourse to technical 
pleas-Further, construction on agricultural land without permission is 
transgression of section 7(1)-Furthermore, proper notice was given to the 
owners to demolish unauthorised construction-Thus, direction for removal 
of unauthorised construction justified and rightly upheld by Tribunal and 
High Court hence, calls for no interference-Constitution of India, 1950 
Artie/~ 136. 
A declaration was notified in the Official Gazette under Section 
4(1) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction 
of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 specifying the controlled area on 
21.12.1971. Publication of the declaration as contemplated in section 
4(2) of the Act in two newspapers printed in a language other than 
English was made 20 years later. Meanwhile in 1986 appellant purchased 
E 
F 
G 
an agricultural land and without permission put the land to a different H 
613 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
use by constructing a Dhabha. District Town Planner issued notice to 
the appellant on the ground that he bad violated the provisions of the 
Act and as such should stop further construction and restore the land 
to its original condition. Appellant contended that the provisions of the 
Act were not violated since the Dhabha was constructed outside 30 
B meters from the road reserve and that the area had not been declared 
as controlled area under the Act on accou.~t of non publication of the 
Development Plan of controlled area till that date, in the official Gazette. 
Original Authority holding that the provisions of the Act had been 
violated called upon the appellant to remove unauthorized construction 
c 
and restore the land to its original cond.ition. Both the Tribunal and the 
High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal 
and the writ petition along with the connecting appeals and the writ 
petitions respectively. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant contended that the declaration notified in an Official 
D Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Act on 21.12.1971 was inchoate and 
did not come into force in view of the failure of the government to have 
it published in at least two newspapers printed other than in English, 
as mandated by section 4(2) of the Act and therefore, the area had not 
become a 'controlled area' within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Act; 
E 
that once there was no proper declaration of the area as a controlled 
area, section 6 or 7 of the Act were not violated and as such the 
construction put up by the appellant could not be objected to; that the 
publication in two language newspapers about 20 years after the 
publication of the declaration in the Official Gazette under section 4(1) 
of the Act would nullify the declaration; and that there was no proper 
F service of notice to the purchasers. 
G 
Respondent-State contended that on a declaration under section 
4(1) of the Act being published in the Official Gazette followed by the 
issua.nce of a draft plan in terms of section 5(1), the area becomes a 
controlled area and any construction therein thereafter could only be 
in terms 9f the Act and after obtaining prior permission from the 
Director and any change in use of the land should also be only after 
seeking and obtaining permission from the Director; that the delay in

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