http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 2671 of 2004

PETITIONER:

Rajinder Singh

RESPONDENT:

State of Haryana & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/12/2004

BENCH:

C.J.I. R.C. LAHOTI, G.P. MATHUR & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

With

(C.A. No.2684/2004, C.A. No.2682/2004, C.A. No.

2696/2004, C.A. No.2686/2004, C.A. No.2681/2004,

C.A. No.2695/2004, C.A. No.2670/2004, C.A.

No.2688/2004, C.A. No.2679/2004, C.A. No.2698/2004,

C.A. No.2697/2004, C.A. No.2693/2004, C.A.

No.2690/2004, C.A. No.2678/2004, C.A. No.2683/2004,

C.A. No.2689/2004, C.A. No.2694/2004, C.A.

No.2699/2004, C.A. No.2685/2004, C.A. No.2680/2004,

C.A. No.2692/2004, C.A. No.2687/2004, C.A.

No.2711/2004, and C.A. No.2712/2004)

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2697 OF 2004

The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.2294 of 2003 on

the file of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is the appellant in this

Appeal. The Appeal challenges the decision of the High Court

dismissing the writ petition. Civil Writ Petition No.2294 of 2003 was

heard along with a number of other writ petitions filed by persons

similarly situated and was treated as the main case. Before the High

Court, it was the common case of the parties in the various writ

petitions that the facts and the position in law in all the cases were

typical of the facts and law arising in Civil Writ Petition (CWP)

No.2294 of 2003 and that the decision in C.W.P. No.2294 of 2003 will

govern all the cases and hence may be treated as the main case. The

High Court acceded to this request and answered the main points in

CWP No.2294 of 2003. Finding against the case of the writ petitioner,

the writ petition was dismissed. Applying the decision, the other writ

petitions were also dismissed. Appeals were filed against those

decisions also. The appeals were heard together. The present appeal

arising from the main judgment was treated as the main appeal. The

questions arising for decision being common, the decision in this

appeal would govern the various cases heard along with it, in addition

to the peculiar facts situation prevailing in some of them.

2. The appellant herein purchased an extent of land

comprising Killa No.172/9/1(2-17), 10/1(1-8) in the revenue estate of

village Murthal, Tehsil Sonepat adjoining the Grand Trunk Road (G.T.

Road) as per sale deed dated 30.10.1986. The land was agricultural

land. The appellant claimed that he constructed what he calls a

'Dhaba' in the land in the same year. He has not given the details

regarding the construction or the time of construction. He did not seek

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10

any permission for putting the land to a use different from agriculture,

or for putting up the construction. On 8.7.2002, the District Town

Planner, Sonepat, exercising the powers of the Director, Town and

Country Planning, Haryana, issued a notice to the appellant under

Section 12(2) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas

Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Development Act') calling upon the appellant to stop

further construction and to appear in his office and to show cause why

he should not be ordered to restore the land to its original state, which

was in the controlled area of Sonepat in terms of the Development Act.

The said notice brought to the notice of the appellant that he was

putting up the construction in a controlled area under the Development

Act; that he had laid out an access to the Grant Trunk Road (G.T.

Road) in contravention of Section 6 of the Development Act; that he

had also contravened Sections 8 and 10 of the Development Act; and

that he had used the land in contravention of Section 7(1) of the

Development Act. The notice called upon the appellant to stop further

construction and to remove the unauthorized construction and restore

the land to its original condition. The appellant filed a reply dated

16.7.2002, to the show cause notice claiming that the 'Dhaba' had been

constructed outside 30 meters from the road reserve and even if a part

of it fell within 30 meters, the dispute was pending before the tribunal

created under the Development Act. His substantive defence was that

there was no notice of publication of the Development plan of

controlled area till that date, in the official gazette, and he could not be

found guilty of violation of Sections 4 and 5 of the Development Act.

The area had not been declared as controlled area under the

Development Act. The appellant was ready and willing to pay the

conversion charges, if any, under Section 7 of the Development Act.

He also raised a contention that he was being treated with

discrimination, since there were other constructions belonging to the

government and others in the locality, presumably violating the

provisions of the Development Act and no steps were taken against

those constructions. The authority, by order dated 23.7.2002, rejected

the contentions of the appellant and found that the provisions of the

Development Act had been violated by the appellant. The Director,

Town and Country Planner Department, therefore, called upon the

appellant to remove his unauthorized construction and restore the land

to its original condition.

3. The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal

constituted under the Development Act, 1963. The appeal was heard

along with various other appeals. The tribunal, on a consideration of

the relevant aspects, came to the conclusion that the Director, Town

and Country Planning Department was justified in passing the order

since there had been a clear violation of the provisions of the

Development Act, 1963 by the appellant and others. Thus, the appeal

filed by the appellant and the connected appeals were dismissed. The

appellant and the others challenged the orders of the Tribunal before

the High Court in various writ petitions. The case of the appellant, as

indicated earlier, was treated as the main writ petition and the High

Court, on a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Development

Act, 1963 in the light of the steps taken under the Development Act,

1963 and the facts obtaining in the case, and the arguments raised,

dismissed the writ petition affirming the order of the tribunal. It also

dismissed the connected writ petitions filed by others. This appeal,

challenges the main decision rendered by the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana and the connected appeals challenge the decisions in the

respective writ petitions filed by the appellants therein.

4. The High Court dealt with in detail the contentions raised

on behalf of the petitioners. It referred to the relevant provisions of the

Act and the objects sought to be achieved by the Act. It also

considered the scope of Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 12 of the Act in the light

of the other relevant provisions and came to the conclusion that on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10

coming into force of the Act on 30.11.1963, the restrictions imposed by

Section 3(1), Section 7 and Section 8 came into effect. It, therefore,

held that the violation of those provisions could be dealt with by the

Authority under the Act. It noticed the fact that in the case on hand the

final development plan of the controlled area in question in terms of

Section 5 of the Act was finalized and published in the Official Gazette

on 26.5.1973. On the argument based on the mandatory nature of the

requirement under Section 4(2) of the Act, the High Court held that

there was compliance with the requirement and there was no time limit

as such fixed for compliance with the said requirement. On facts, it

also found that the purchases and constructions were after the

publications in the newspapers themselves. Finding that there was no

answer to the charges of violation of Section 3(1) of the Act, Section

7(1) of the Act and Section 8 of the Act, the High Court held that the

petitioners were not entitled to any relief from that Court and the

Tribunal and the Original Authority were fully justified it directing

removal of unauthorized constructions put up in agricultural lands

without permission, without obtaining an approved plan and in

violation of Section 3 of the Development Act. The pleas that there

was violation of natural justice and that there was procedural defect in

the disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal, were also overruled. Thus,

the orders of the Original Authority as affirmed by the Tribunal were

upheld.

5. Though various contentions were raised in the petition for

special leave to appeal in this Court, the main argument that was

pressed before us was that the requirement of Section 4(2) was

mandatory and so long as that mandate had not been complied with, the

notification of the declaration under Section 4(1) of the Act notifying

the areas as controlled areas remained incohate in spite of it being

published in the Gazette and that any construction made in a so called

controlled area could not be objected to, if the construction was prior to

the date of publication of the notification in two newspapers other than

in English language. There was no argument based on alleged

violation of natural justice put forward before the High Court but

argument was raised that there was no proper service of notice on the

petitioners and as contemplated by the Act. No argument was made

that the final development plan had not been finalized, a contention that

was raised before the High Court. It was not disputed that if there was

a violation of Section 3 of the Act, action could be taken, whether the

area was a controlled area or not. The questions raised are dealt with

hereunder.

6. The Development Act, 1963 came into force on

30.11.1963. It was an Act to prevent haphazard, sub-standard

development along scheduled roads and in controlled areas in the State

of Punjab. Subsequently, by the Haryana Adaptation of Laws Order

1968, the Act was adapted by the State of Haryana and extended to the

whole of that State. Section 2(1) of the Development Act, 1963

defined 'agriculture'. A Bypass was defined by Section 2(3) of the

Act. Section 2(5) of the Act defined a controlled area as meaning an

area declared under Section 4 of the Act to be a controlled area.

Section 2(9) of the Act defined the expression 'road reservation' in

relation to a scheduled road and Section 2(10) defined a 'scheduled

road' as meaning a road specified in the schedule to the Act and as

including a bypass. The other definitions are not being referred to for

the moment, since they are not relevant for our purpose. Section 3

enacted a prohibition against erection or re-erection of a building along

side scheduled roads. There was no dispute before us that the G.T.

Road was a scheduled road and that any violation of Section 3(1) of

The Development Act, 1963 could be dealt with under the Act and the

constructions got removed. Section 3(1) prohibits a person from

erecting or re-erecting any building or laying out any means of access

to a road within 100 meters of either side of the road reservation of a

bypass or within 30 meters on either side of the road reservation or any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10

scheduled road, not being a bypass. Certain exceptions are provided

with which we are not concerned except to notice that an exemption

attempted to be provided in respect of public utility buildings and

community assets was declared unconstitutional by the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana. Section 4 of the Act, by sub-section (1), gave

power to the government to declare by a notification, the whole or any

part of any area adjacent to and within a distance of 8 kilometers on the

outer side of the boundary of any town; or two kilometers on the outer

side of the boundary of any industrial or housing estate, public

institution or an ancient and historical monument, as a controlled area

for the purposes of The Development Act, 1963. Sub-section (2)

provided that the government shall also cause the contents of the

declaration made under sub-section (1) to be published in at least two

newspapers printed in a language other than English. There is no

dispute that in the case on hand, though the declaration was notified in

the Official Gazette on 21.12.1971, the same was published in

newspapers only in the year 1991, on 26.3.1991 in an English daily The

Tribune, on 25.3.1991 in the Hindi daily Jan Sandesh and on 9.4.1991

in the daily Dainik Amar Rajnitik. Section 5 contemplates the

publication of plans in the prescribed manner showing the controlled

area and therein the nature of restrictions and conditions proposed to be

made applicable to the controlled area and providing for submission of

plans to the government. Sub-section (2) provides for what the plan

should indicate. Under sub-section (3), the government has the power

either to approve the plan with or without modification or reject the

plan with a direction to the Director to prepare a fresh plan according to

its directions. Under sub-section (4), the government was to cause to

be published by a notification the plans approved by it under Section

5(3) of the Development Act. Under sub-section (5), the parties had

the right to object to the proposals. The Director was to give an

opportunity of being heard to such objectors under sub-section (6) and

after doing so, under sub-section (7), make recommendations to the

government and the government had to decide as to the final plans

showing the controlled area. The same had to be published in the

Official Gazette and in such other manner as may be prescribed. Sub \026

section (8) enabled a provision to be made by Rules with respect to the

form and contents of the plans and with respect to the procedure to be

followed and any other matter in connection with the preparation,

submission and approval of the plans. The government, under sub-

section (9), had also the power to direct the Director to furnish any

other information that the government may want for the purpose of

approving the plans submitted to it under Section 5 of the Development

Act. Section 6 prevented a person from erecting or re-erecting any

building or laying out an access to a road save in accordance with the

plans and restrictions and conditions referred to in Section 5 of the

Development Act and with the previous permission of the Director.

The proviso enabled a construction to be made without permission if it

was to be used for agricultural purposes. Section 7 prohibits the use of

land in controlled areas. No land within the controlled area could be

used for purposes other than those for which it was used on the date of

publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the

Development Act except with the permission of the Director and on

payment of the conversion charges as may be prescribed. Section

7A confers a power on the government to relax in public interest, any

of the restrictions or conditions, insofar as they relate to land use

prescribed in the controlled area in exceptional circumstances. Section

8 provides for filing of applications for permission and for grant or

refusal thereof. Section 9 confers a power of entry on the Director or a

person authorized by him in that behalf. Section 10 provides a right

of appeal to a person who was aggrieved by an order on an application

filed under Section 8 of the Act. Section 10A of the Development Act

confers a power of revision by the government and Section 10B confers

a power of review on the Director. Section 11 provides that the

Director shall carry out such directions as may be issued to him from

time to time by the government for the efficient administration of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10

Development Act. Section 12 provides for offences and penalties and

makes contraventions of the provisions of Sections 3, 6, 8 and 10 and

the user of land in contravention of Section 7(1) or Section 7 of the

Development Act, punishable. Section 14 provides for composition

of offences. Section 16 provides for sanction of prosecution.

Section 21 of the Development Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil

court. Section 23 provides that nothing in the Development Act would

affect the operation of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act,

1952, and the Punjab Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act,

1961. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 gives over-riding effect to the

provisions of the Development Act and the Rules notwithstanding

anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. Section

25 of the Act confers the rule making power on the government. For

completion, it may be noted that the G.T. Road (from Delhi to Amritsar

and on the border with Pakistan) is the first item in the Schedule of

Scheduled Roads within the purview of Section 3(1) of the

Development Act.

7. To recapitulate, though a declaration was notified in the

Official Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Development Act specifying

the controlled area as early as on 21.12.1971; on 31.10.86 when the

appellant purchased the plot of land in question, the publication had not

been effected in the newspapers as contemplated by Section 4(2) of the

Act. Though there was some controversy in pleadings whether the plan

as contemplated by Section 5 of the Act had been published, at the time

of hearing, there was no dispute that a plan had been published as

contemplated by Section 5 of the Development Act. But the

publication of the declaration as contemplated in Section 4(2) of the

Development Act in two newspapers printed in a language other than

English, was made only in the months of March and April 1991. In

that context, it was the contention on behalf of the appellant that the

declaration notified under Section 4(1) of the Development Act on

21.12.1971 in the Official Gazette was incohate 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 Development Act. It was, therefore, contended

that the area had not become a 'controlled area' within the meaning of

Section 4(1) of the Development Act and consequently, no action could

be taken against the appellant for putting up a construction against the

terms of the Development Act in a controlled area. It was further

submitted that once there was no proper declaration of the area as a

controlled area, there could be no violation of Section 6 or 7 of the

Development Act and consequently, the appellant or his construction,

could not be visited with any consequence under the Development Act.

We may notice that the argument in the High Court was that the delay

in publishing the declaration in two newspapers was a colourable

exercise of power.

8. On the scheme of the Development Act an area becomes a

controlled area by the government declaring it to be so by a notification

under Section 4(1) of the Development Act. No doubt Section 4(2) of

the Development Act provides that the government shall also cause the

contents of the declaration made under Section 4(1) to be published in

at least two newspapers printed in a language other than English. What

is argued on behalf of the appellant is that Section 4(2) of the

Development Act is mandatory and so long as a declaration notified in

an Official Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Development Act, is not

followed by the publication of the contents of that declaration in two

language newspapers under Section 4(2) of the Development Act, the

declaration of the controlled area does not come into force and

consequently the area could not be deemed to be a controlled area. It

is also submitted as a corollary that publication in two language

newspapers about 20 years after the publication of the declaration in

the Official Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Development Act is of no

avail since it was unreasonable to allow such long lapse of time

between the notification and the publication. This is met by counsel

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10

appearing for the State by submitting that on a declaration under

Section 4(1) of the Act being published in the Official Gazette followed

by the issuance of a draft plan in terms of Section 5(1) of the

Development Act, the area becomes a controlled area and any

construction therein thereafter could only be in terms of the

Development 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. It is contended

that the delay in making the publication in the newspapers cannot have

the effect of nullifying the declaration already issued in the Official

Gazette which is normally the mode of publication of governmental

orders and notifications and it is also the mode prescribed by Section

4(1) of the Development Act. It is also submitted that Section 4(2) of

the Development Act is not mandatory and though the expression

'shall' is used therein, what the sub-section really provides is that the

government shall also cause the contents of the declaration to be

published in two newspapers other than English and this shows that the

requirement was not mandatory (emphasis supplied).

9. The High Court, dealing with this contention, after

noticing the conspectus of the Development Act, the purpose sought to

be achieved by it and the earlier directions issued by that Court to

implement the provisions of the Development Act took the view that it

was not possible to hold that the delayed publication of the contents of

the declaration under Section 4(2) of the Development Act and the

delayed finalization of the final development plan under Section 5 of

the Development Act would affect the declaration under Section 4(1) of

the Development Act. In fact, it may be noted that what was

contended before the High Court was that the declaration under Section

4(1) of the Development Act remained inchoate for want of publication

of its contents in two language newspapers and that the belated

publication in two language newspapers amounted to a colorable

exercise of power. Whatever it may be, the question is whether the fact

that the contents of the declaration notified under Section 4(1) of the

Development Act was published in two language newspapers only at a

subsequent point of time would justify our holding that the declaration

notified under Section 4(1) of the Development Act never came into

force at all and whether it could be held that the area in question did not

become a 'controlled area' within the meaning of the Development Act.

Actually, on the facts of almost all of these cases, the purchases, or at

least the attempted constructions were after the publications in

Newspapers and in those cases, this argument may not even be

available to the appellants.

10. In addition to the indication available in Section 4(2) of

the Development Act in view of the stipulation that the government

shall also cause the contents to be published in two newspapers, we

find that both Section 5(1) and 7(1) of the Development Act, speak

only of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the

Development Act and not the publication of the contents of the

declaration in terms of Section 4(2) of the Development Act. This, in

our view, indicates that the requirement of Section 4(2) of the

Development Act was not made mandatory by the legislature. No

doubt the legislature wanted the people within the proposed controlled

area to know of the declaration issued by the government and that was

sought to be achieved by directing that the said declaration also be

published in two language newspapers other than in English. But

from this it cannot be inferred that without such publication of the

contents in two newspapers the declaration already issued in terms of

Section 4(1) of the Development Act in the Official Gazette remains

still born or inchoate or of no consequence. In this context we cannot

ignore the object sought to be achieved by the Act and the scheme of

the Act in defining a controlled area as indicated by Section 4(1) itself.

11. It is argued on behalf of the appellant in the present appeal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10

and by counsel in support of the other appeals that at best the

notification could be treated as becoming effective only from the date

of publication of the contents of the declaration in two language

newspapers and cases in which the construction had been made after

the notification of the declaration under Section 4(1) of the Act and

before the publication of its contents in two newspapers should be held

to be not violative of the provisions of the Development Act. The

decision in Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and another

vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal ( 1985 (3) SCC 1 ) was relied on to contend

that the requirement for giving public notice of the substance of the

notified declaration was mandatory, but it has to be noticed that the said

decision related to the giving of public notice of the substance of the

notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and

the scope of the Land Acquisition Act is obviously different from the

Development Act which only seeks to control the user of the land and

does not deprive the owner of his rights over the land. Moreover, on

the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, the publication of the contents

in the locality has much relevance and it is not merely for conveying

information to the members of the public. It appears to us that the

decisions based on the Land Acquisition Act in that regard are clearly

distinguishable, on the language of Section 4(2) of the Act, the object

sought to be achieved and the nature of the prohibition contained in the

Development Act and the obligation imposed on the owner of the land

by the Development Act. The argument to the effect that a right

cannot be taken away without following the procedure laid down, based

on the ratio in Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (P)

Ltd. And others (2003 (2) SCC 111), is also of no avail since that

was also a decision under the Land Acquisition Act depriving the

owner of his right to property altogether though, of course, subject to

payment of compensation as provided in that Act. We should not be

understood as saying that the procedure laid down by the Act need not

be followed. The procedure laid down has been followed but only

after a lapse of time. In such a situation, especially considering the

object sought to be achieved by The Development Act and the nature of

the restrictions in public interest that are sought to be imposed by the

Act, it is not possible to uphold a contention that the belated adherence

to the procedure would nullify the very declaration duly notified in the

Official Gazette in terms of Section 4(1) of The Development Act.

On the scheme of The Development Act it appears to us that the

notification of a declaration under Section 4(1) of The Development

Act in the Official Gazette which is the normal mode of publishing

orders of government for the knowledge of the public in terms of the

General Clauses Act, would bring about the consequences

contemplated by The Development Act. In this case and in the

connected cases, the contents of the declaration notified under Section

4(1) of The Development Act were also subsequently published in two

newspapers other than in English and in that situation we are inclined

to hold that the procedural requirement has also been satisfied. Even

apart from that, in view of our conclusion that Section 4(2) of The

Development Act was not mandatory in the sense that the failure to

publish in two newspapers would render the original notification of the

declaration issued under Section 4(1) of The Development Act nonest,

the argument that the area has not become a controlled area cannot be

accepted. We, therefore, overrule the contention that the area had not

been notified or declared as a controlled area within the meaning of

The Development Act.

12. The appellant has no case that he had sought for

permission to convert the land which was agricultural land, into non

agricultural land in terms of Section 7(1) of The Development Act.

There is, therefore, a clear transgression of that provision. Similarly,

that part of the construction that falls within 30 meters of the G.T. Road

or within 100 meters of a bypass road or the laying of an access to the

G.T. Road without prior permission have to be held to be illegal in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10

terms of the Development Act.

13. In that context it was contended that in some of the cases

there was no proper notice to the owners calling upon them to demolish

the construction allegedly put up by them unauthorizedly. It is seen

from the records that in some cases notices were sent by registered post

and in some of the cases notices were sent under certificate of posting.

The appellants disputed this and pleaded that they have not received the

notices. The respondents have also pleaded that the notices were also

affixed contemporaneously in the premises in all the cases. In most of

the cases, this fact was not disputed but it was contended that the mode

of service by affixture could be resorted to only after the notices were

sought to be served in person as prescribed by the Rules. In the

context of these cases, we see no reason to disbelieve the stand of the

respondents that notices were issued to some of the appellants under

certificate of posting and to some others by registered post and that in

all cases the notices were affixed. The notices indicate that they were

issued when unauthorized constructions were commenced and they

called upon the owners to stop further constructions. We must also

notice that having come to know of the notices, the appellants had, in

fact, filed objections. In addition, it is seen that on the basis of a

direction issued by the High Court, various appellants were given

notices informing them of a right of appeal to the tribunal constituted

under The Development Act against the orders of the Director and such

appeals were filed by all the appellants before the Tribunal. The

Tribunal had dealt with those appeals and the contentions they had

raised. The Director had also dealt with the objections raised by the

appellants. In this situation, nothing turns on the arguments based on

natural justice or the failure to give proper notice. The High Court, in

our view, has rightly overruled the contentions based on want of notice

or inadequacy of notice.

14. It is clear from the terms of the Development Act that as

regards the scheduled roads, the Development Act becomes operative

from the date of the Act and any construction in violation of section

3(1) of the Development Act after the coming into force of the

Development Act has to be found to be illegal. Therefore, the

authorities were fully justified in directing removal of constructions

which fell within 30 meters of a scheduled road or 100 meters of a

bypass to a scheduled road. We have already held that on the scheme

of the Development Act and in the light of the object sought to be

achieved by the Development Act, the declaration of a controlled area

becomes effective from the date of the notification of the declaration in

terms of Section 4(1) of the Development Act even though the contents

of that declaration are published in two newspapers other than in

English only at a later point of time. In view of this, in all these cases

the constructions had been put up in controlled areas and that too

without permission of the Director. In almost all the cases, the

construction has also been put up on agricultural land which again

could not be done without permission in terms of the Development Act.

It is, therefore, clear that there is open transgression of the relevant

provisions of the Development Act and the authorities were fully

justified in directing the appellant and others to remove their

unauthorized constructions.

15. The Act seeks to achieve the object of leaving clear areas

adjacent to scheduled roads intended for swift and safe moving of

vehicular traffic. Any attempt to defeat that object by putting

constructions of dhabas, residential or industrial buildings against the

terms of the Development Act, would tend to affect public safety and

endanger lives and property and courts must discourage such attempts.

Lethargy or studied indifference of officials to act promptly cannot be

made use of to thwart public interest. This has been indicated by the

High Court in its earlier judgments. It is, therefore, not just or proper

for courts to entertain pleas of technical nature which would tend to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10

defeat the object of the Development Act. Viewed from that context,

we are satisfied that the appellant has not made out any case for

interference and the tribunal and the High Court were fully justified in

not interfering with the action initiated by the authorities concerned for

removal of unauthorized constructions in violation of Section 3(1) of

the Development Act.

16. Same is the position regarding constructions in controlled

areas. The purpose of declaring an area, a controlled area, cannot be

allowed to be defeated by recourse to technical pleas, especially by

those who have violated the terms of the statute. It is seen that except

in one or two cases, the lands were purchased and constructions

without permission were attempted after the declaration was published

in newspapers as envisaged by Section 4(2) of the Act. In those cases,

these pleas are not even available. Viewed from the angle of public

interest, when there is notification of the declaration in the Gazette in

terms of Section 4(1) of the Development Act, the same must be given

effect to and any user of land for purposes other than the original

purpose for which it was used, should be discouraged and the attempt

to put up constructions which would lead to haphazard development of

the controlled area should be prevented and these objects should not be

lost sight of by courts which are concerned with public interest, which

ultimately has to prevail over private interest. Thus, viewed from any

angle we are satisfied that the decision of the High Court does not call

for interference.

We, therefore, affirm the decision of the High Court and

dismiss this appeal. The appellant is given time of two months from

this date to remove the offending construction. If the appellant fails to

remove the same within that time, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 will get the

construction removed and file a compliance report in this regard. The

interim order is vacated and the respondents are directed to implement

the Act and the orders passed thereunder.

C.A. No.2685, 2687, 2692, 2696, 2686, 2693, 2695, 2670, 2679, 2682,

2694,2690, 2678, 2683, 2689, 2699, 2680, 2711 and 2712 of 2004

In almost all these cases the appellants purchased the lands

wherein they put up constructions, found to be unauthorized in terms of

the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction on

Unregulated Development Act, 1963, after the declaration under

Section 4(1) of the Act was notified in the Gazette and it was also

published in two newspapers other than in English language as

contemplated by Section 4(2) of the Act. The constructions put up

without permission were also thereafter. It is, therefore, not open to

the appellants to raise a contention that the declaration under Section

4(1) of the Act was inchoate because it was not followed up by

publication of its contents in two newspapers other than in English. We

have even otherwise held in our Judgment in C.A. No.2697 of 2004,

that the provision for publication under Section 4(2) of the Act in two

newspapers other than in English language was not mandatory. We

have also held that mere delay in publishing the declaration in two

newspapers would not invalidate the declaration of the area as

controlled area. In these cases, the appellants put up the constructions

in violation of the statute and without the requisite permissions under

the Act. Therefore, the authority under the Act, the appellate tribunal

and the High Court rightly dismissed their challenge to the action taken

under the Act.

We dismiss these appeals. The appellants are given time

of two months from this date to remove the offending constructions. If

the appellants fail to remove them within that time, Respondent Nos.1

and 2 will get the constructions removed and file a compliance report in

this regard.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10

Civil Appeal No. 2671, 2681, 2684, 2688 and 2698 of 2004

In these appeals the appellants obtained leases of pieces of

land from Kambopura Gram Panchayat in the year 1986 in violation of

Section 5 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961

and Rule 3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules,

1964. Since the leases were against the terms of the said Act and the

Rules, the said leases do not confer any right on the appellants and no

right in them to put up any construction that can be recognized.

That apart, in view of our Judgment in C.A. No.2697 of 2004

there is no merit in these appeals. They are dismissed. The appellants

are given time of two months from this date to remove the offending

constructions. If the appellants fail to remove them within that time,

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 will get the constructions removed and file a

compliance report in this regard.