Vivek Malhotra And A... v. Director General Tow..., Punjab & Haryana High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners sought to quash two orders: one dated 08.07.2014 and another dated 27.06.2013, which declined their application for grant of change of land use. The petitioners had purchased land from M/s Durga Wooltex, which was subject to unauthorised construction and related legal proceedings. The petitioners contended that since they acquired the land legitimately, they were entitled to apply for change of land use. The authorities, however, declined their application, citing ongoing unauthorised construction and violations under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. The petitioners challenged these decisions before the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petitioners, having purchased land from M/s Durga Wooltex, could legitimately apply for change of land use despite the land being part of unauthorised construction.

Whether the authorities were justified in declining the petitioners' application for change of land use based on the ongoing unauthorised construction and related statutory provisions.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

The land purchased from M/s Durga Wooltex was not part of the unauthorised construction.

They were entitled to apply for change of land use as legitimate successors to M/s Durga Wooltex, based on the Court’s earlier directions allowing M/s Durga Wooltex to apply for such change.

The authorities erred in declining their application by misinterpreting the Court's order dated 27.10.2014.

Authorities' Position (as inferred from the Court’s reasoning)

M/s Durga Wooltex had unauthorisedly constructed a factory, leading to FIR registration and penal action.

M/s Durga Wooltex did not complete necessary formalities for change of land use, including composition of unauthorised construction, before selling part of the land to the petitioners.

The unauthorised construction remains, violating the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963.

Therefore, the petitioners’ application for change of land use was rightly declined.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged that while M/s Durga Wooltex was directed to apply for change of land use, the unauthorised construction of a factory by M/s Durga Wooltex had led to FIR registration and penal proceedings. The Court noted that M/s Durga Wooltex failed to fulfill necessary requirements for change of land use, including addressing the unauthorised construction, before bifurcating and selling part of the land to the petitioners. The Court emphasized that the unauthorised construction remains and is subject to action under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. Consequently, the petitioners, having purchased land with such violations, were not entitled to change of land use. The Court found no merit in the petitioners’ submissions and upheld the authorities’ orders declining the change of land use.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the petition, upholding the orders dated 08.07.2014 and 27.06.2013 which declined the petitioners' application for change of land use. The direct effect is that the petitioners cannot obtain change of land use for the purchased land due to ongoing unauthorised construction and violations under the relevant statutory provisions. No new precedent was established by this decision.

Vivek Malhotra And Another Petitioners v. Director General Town And Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh And Others S

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

The petitioners have sought quashing of order dated 08.07.2014 (Annexure P-6) and the order passed in appeal and review dated 27.06.2013 (Annexure P-4) respectively, whereby their application for grant of change of land use has been declined.

The counsel for the petitioners has contended that the land purchased by the petitioners from M/s Durga Wooltex was not part of the unauthorised construction and they could have legitimately applied for land use after buying the same. He has further contended that the authorities erred in declining his case by wrongly interpreting the order of this Court dated 27.10.2014 whereby directions were issued under which M/s Durga Wooltex could apply for change of land use. Hence, they having stepped into the shoes of M/s Durga Wooltex were entitled to apply for change of land use.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and are of the view that there is no merit in his submissions.

It is no doubt true that in CWP No. 6026 of 2011 this Court had directed M/s Durga Wooltex to apply for change of land use and the petitioners having purchased the land could as well apply for change of land use. However, it is necessary to mention that M/s Durga Wooltex had raised unauthorised construction of a factory and FIR had been registered by the office of District Town Planner, Karnal. Penal action had also been initiated by the department. Had M/s Durga Wooltex applied for change of land use, it would have to fulfil all the necessary requirements including composition of unauthorised construction. Instead of completing the necessary formalities, M/s Durga Wooltex bifurcated its land and sold a part of it to the petitioners. A perusal of order dated 08.07.2014 passed by Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana Town and Country Planning & Urban Estates Departments reveals that the unauthorised construction by M/s Durga Wooltex is still present and appropriate action under the provisions of Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 has been directed to be taken against it. Therefore, the petitioner having purchased a part of the land having unauthorised construction which is in violation of Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 has rightly been declined change of land use and there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities.

Therefore, we find no ground to interfere in the orders passed by the authorities in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petition is dismissed.

CWP No. 22058 of 2014

Vivek Malhotra And A... v. Director General Tow...