ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ
1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition seeking mandamus for grant of change of land use (CLU) from the agricultural to industrial.
2. Case of the appellant is that it purchased land in the year 1996 and applied for Change of Land Use in the year 2009. In development plan issued on 28.12.2007, the area was covered by industrial zone. Since the appellant did not receive any reply, permission for change of land use should be deemed to have been granted under Section 8(4) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Area Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963.
3. Learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the writ petition. It was held that part of the land fell in green belt and part of it was on the circular road and the land was covered by notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The operative part of the order is as under:-
“The proposed land of the petitioner-Company concededly falls in the controlled area, which was declared as such on 10.9.1980 As per the final development plan published on 28.12.2007, the Company's land falls in Sector 15, which is industry zone. The application for change of land use permission was made on 2.6.2009 This was not accompanied by requisite documents. The petitioner was asked to remove the deficiencies. Revised documents were submitted on 16.6.2009 Part of the proposed sites fall in a green belt and part comes within 24 meters wide internal circulation road. Besides, the land is under notification for acquisition. The request accordingly has been turned down. Once the area is declared as a controlled area, the permission to erect or re-erect a building is to be regulated by various provisions of the Act and once the land falls in the green belt or in a circular road as per the development plan, the change of land use certainly can not be granted. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction either to set-aside the impugned order or to direct grant of permission is made out.”
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Change of Land Use should have been allowed in respect of land not falling in green belt or on the circular road and mere initiation of acquisition proceedings was no bar to change of land use.
6. We are unable to accept the submissions. Admittedly, the land is covered by proposed acquisition. The acquisition is not under challenge. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that the appellant had acquired any right for change of land use so as to enforce such right by a writ of mandamus.
7. We, thus, do not find any ground to interference with the view taken by learned Single Judge.
The appeal is dismissed.
Comments