State of Haryana vs Hona Ram and Others

A.S. Nehra, J.—The State of Haryana has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 2-6-1986 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sonepat, by which the respondents have been acquitted of the charge u/s 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter called the Act).

The facts of the case are that the District Town Planner, Sonepat, wrote a letter to the Station House Officer, Sonepat City, stating that the respondents had contravened Section 7 (i) of the Act by dividing and transferring their land, measuring more than 1,000 square meters, into plots without obtaining a lience from the Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, as required u/s 3 of the Act and, therefore, the respondents had committed an offence punish able u/s 10 of the Act. On the basis of this letter, First Information Report was registered and a challan was presented before the trial Judge. During the trial, an application was filed by the learned counsel for the respondents stating therein that HO offence under the Act is made out against the respondents because they had not sold plots of more than 1,000 square metres each to reader them liable for penalty u/s 10 of the Act.

The relevant provisions of the Act, which are attracted to the facts of the present case, are as under: -

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

(i) for the purpose of agriculture ; or

(ii) as a 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 colony.

Section 7.-Prohibition to advertise and transfer plots.-Save as provided in section 9, no person shall-

(i) without obtaining a licence u/s 3, transfer or agree to transfer, in any manner, plots in a colony or make an advertisement or receive any amount in respect thereof;

Section 10-Penalties:- Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder or any of the conditions of a. licence granted u/s 3 shall be punish able with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."

The respondents are alleged to have jointly sold more than 1,000 square metres of agricultural land beloning to them, situated within the municipal limits of Sonepat, without a valid licence for the same, vide separate sale-deeds. Section 7(i) read with Section 2(i) of the Act prohibits the sale of a plot exceeding 1,000 square metres in area in a colony without a licence which is issued by the Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana. In the case in hand, the respondents were the joint owners and had sold their shares in the aforesaid transactions. Therefore, none of them had sold a plot of more than 1,000 square metres to render him liable for penalty u/s 10 of the Act. From the facts as stated in the report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no offence u/s 10 of the Act is made out against the respondents. The trial Magistrate had acquitted the respondents in view of a judgment of this Court reported as Dilbagh Rai and Ors. v. The State of Haryana 1984 Ch. C. C 499, which is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel for the appellant has not brought to bur notice any judgment which has taken a contrary view.

In view of the above-mentioned discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.