Krishna Devi vs State of Haryana

J.S. Sekhon, J.—Smt. Krishna Devi and her husband Jai Kishan, petitioners, sold their joint holdings of land located within the urban limits of Sirsa town to different persons through five sale deeds. The sixth sale deed was executed by their son Yogesh. Those persons had not obtained the licence from the requisite Authority under Section 3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975 (for short "the Act") for developing the agricultural land as "colony". In these circumstances, a case under Section 7, punishable under Section 10 of the Act was registered against them on December 17, 1990.

Through this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek the quashment of the first information report and resultant proceedings therefrom inter alia on the ground that areas sold by the individual land owner being less than 1000 square metres, it does not fall within the definition of "colony" figuring in clause 2(c) of the Act.

This petition is resisted by the respondentState, contending that been if the sixth sale deed of land executed by Yogesh son of the petitioner is executed within the area of joint land holding held by these two petitioners which works upto 1331 square yards, it exceeds 1000 square metres.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record.

Under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, in order to check the growth of haphazard colonies in the urban areas of towns in the Haryana State, the above referred Act was enacted. The provisions of Section 3 of the Act provide that no person will develop a colony without permission of the concerned authorities but the definition of "colony" figuring in Section 2(c) of the Act reveals that sale of land for agricultural purpose or transfer of land by inheritance, succession or partition of join holdings of the area for sale being less than 1000 square metres has been exempted from the application of this Act. The definition of "colony" figuring in clause 2(c) of the Act reads under:

"2(c) "Colony"means an area of land divided into plots or proposed to be divided into plots for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, but area of land divided or proposed to be divided:

(i) for the purpose of agricultural; or

(ii) as result of family partition, inheritance, succession or partition of joint holding not with the motive of earning profit; or

(iii) in furtherance of any scheme sanctioned under any other law; or

(iv) by the owner of a factory for setting up a housing colony for the labourers or the employees working in the factory; provided there is no profit motive; or

(v) when it does not exceed one thousand square metres, shall not be a colony."

On the basis of clause (ii) of Section 2(c) of the Act providing the area of land to be divided through succession, partition of joint holding or through family partition, Mr. Bishnoi contended that the entire area of joint holdings sold by different owners has to be calculated as one unit for the purpose of assessing whether it exceeds 1000 square metres, and not the entire area of land of joint holdings sold by them.

In clause (ii) of Section 2(c) of the Act, the reference to the land transferred by way of partition of joint holdings, succession or inheritance has been specifically exempted from the definition of "colony" under this Act. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the sale of joint holdings by joint owners would fall under the definition of "colony" as a person cannot sell more than the area falling in his share in the joint holdings. Moreover, where two interpretations are possible then the one favourable to the accused is to be taken into consideration. Keeping in view the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused and the onus to prove the charge of criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt rests upon the prosecution, thus the petitioners are not liable for the alleged offence.

The above referred view is also supported from the ratio of the decision of Single Bench of this Court in Dilbagh Rai and others v. The State of Haryana, 1984 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 499. In that case also, the parties had jointly sold 1072 square metres of agricultural land located in the urban area of some town. Thus, the Single Bench of this Court quashed the proceedings under Sections 7 and 10 of the Act by holding that they had committed no offence, as the individual area sold by each of the joint owners does not exceed 1000 square metres of land and thus it would not fall under the definition of "colony". Again in Anant Parkash Jain and others v. The State of Haryana, 1989 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 530, a similar view was taken by A.P. Chowdhari, J.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no option, but to accept this petition and quash the first information report (Annexure P1) and the resultant proceedings therefrom. It is ordered accordingly.