Harish Chander vs State of Haryana

N.K. Agrawal, J.

An F.I.R. (No. 832 dated December 4, 1990) was registered by the Police at Police Station City, Gurgaon, against the petitioner, Harish Chander, under Section 7/10, Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (for short, the Act). This case was registered on the basis of a letter dated November 20, 1990 from District Town Planner (Enforcement), Gurgaon.

This petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed by the petitioneraccused for quashing the F.I.R. and staying his arrest.

Allegation against the petitioneraccused is that he transferred his land in plots in the years 1988, 1989 and 1990 without licence from Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, as required under Section 3 of the Act. This is in contravention of Section 7(i) of the Act. It was a punishable offence under Section 10 of the Act as the petitioneraccused sold land for developing it as a `Colony'' without requisite licence.

Learned counsel for the petitioneraccused has argued that the petitioner was the owner of land bearing Khewat No. 565/529, Khatoni No. 618 and Khata No. 242 situated in village Hidayatpur Chhavani, Hadbast No. 25, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The petitioner, in pursuance of the family arrangement in 1963 between him and his real brothers, Ram Chander and Tek Chand, alienated the land to his brothers and nephews. No offence was, therefore, made out against the petitioner. It is also argued that the area of each plot of land transferred by the petitioner was less than 1,000 square metres and was, thus, exempted under Section 9 of the Act. Moreover, no sanction for prosecution was obtained from the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. It is further contended that the land in question was not an urban area and was actually an agricultural land. Since the land under family arrangement has been sold by the petitioner to his brothers, no offence is made out.

Learned counsel for the petitioneraccused has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Smt. Krishna and another v. State of Haryana, 1992(2) Recent CR 497 . That was a case where certain land under joint holdings was sold by joint owners. It was held that the sale of joint holdings by joint owners would not fall within the definition of `Colony'' as a person cannot sell more than the area falling in his share in joint holding.

The aforesaid decision does not help the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner has sold land in his individual capacity and not as a joint owner.

Mr. Parmod Goyal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has, on the other hand, argued that the land owned by the petitioner has been divided unauthorisedly by him and it was not permissible under the Act. The petitioneraccused divided land measuring 2540 square yards owned by him into plots and sold those plots under six registered sale deeds vide Registration Nos. (i) 4982 dated 15.7.1988, (ii) 6431 dated 30.9.1988, (iii) 9747 dated 2.3.1989, (iv) 2330 dated 22.6.1989, (v) 2132 dated 11.6.1990, and (vi) 2133 dated 11.6.1990.

Learned Deputy Advocate General has further argued that the land was situated within the urban area of Gurgaon and the petitioneraccused wilfully contravened the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. Since the petitioner''s land fell within the municipal limits of Gurgaon, it was within the urban area as defined in Section 2(o) of the Act. The petitioner owned land measuring 17 Biswas 10 Biswansis, i.e. about 2122 square metres, according to the jamabandi (Annexure R1) for 198889 in the revenue estate of village Hidayatpur Cantt., Tehsil and District Gurgaon.

It is also argued by the learned Deputy Advocate General that in none of the sale deeds there was any mention of the family settlement/arrangement and, therefore, the plea now taken by the petitioneraccused is wholly without basis. The petitioneraccused sold his land by dividing it into six plots for consideration. The police, after investigation, filed challan on May 11, 1991. Sanction for prosecution was given by the District Magistrate under Section 11 of the Act. Copy of the sale deed dated June 22, 1989 showed sale of land measuring 500 square yards for Rs. 75,000/. Another plot of land measuring 3 Biswas 7.5 Biswansis was sold by the petitioner for Rs. 50,000/ by sale deed dated March 2, 1989. Similarly, other sale deeds were also executed by the petitioner. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner sold his land as agricultural land. The plots of land were sold showing measurements in square yards, which prima facie showed that the plots of land were sold as residential or commercial plots.

On a consideration of the matter, it is found that the petitioneraccused has not been able to show that the criminal case filed against him is prima facie entirely false or fictitious. He is at liberty to produce evidence in defence during the course of trial before the learned Magistrate. Prima facie, three appears no reason to interfere at this stage. It would not be appropriate to reach any conclusion or to make any observation in the present order.

In the result, the petition is found to be without merit. It is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioneraccused is directed to appear before the Court, where the criminal case is pending, on October 8, 1998.