The State of Punjab vs Sh. Rulda Singh

S.S. Grewal, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar, dated 13.2.1901, whereby complaint filed by Sh. Dharam Chand, J.E., against the present respondent, u/s 11(1) read with Sections 3(1) and 8(1) of the Punjab Regulation of Colonies Act, 1975 (here-in-after referred to as the Act), was dismissed and Rulda Singh accused-respondent was ordered to be discharged.

In brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that according to the allegations in the complaint, the respondent is owner of land bearing Khasra No. 54/18/1, 18/2, 23/1, 23/2, 23/4, 24/1, 67/3/1, 3/5, 4/1 min, Had Bast No. 193 situated at village Balachaur District Hoshiarpur. The respondent divided the aforesaid land into more than five plots for the purpose of transfer for residential, commercial, industrial or any other building purpose and has set up a colony as defined in Section 2(C) of the said Act. It was further pleaded that the respondent sold 10 plots to different persons for the purpose of constructing buildings. The details of transfers affected by the respondent after coming into force of the Act are as under:-

Sr.No. Name of Purchaser Area of Date of Date of Sale Khasra Plot execution Registration Price No. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Subhash Chander s/o 7M 7.7.1987 7.7.87 3000/-5 4/23/2 Lekh Raj s/o Jiwan Mal. Vill Ratewal. 2. Smt.Sunita Chandel 8M 15.11.85 25.11.85 2000/- 67/3/5,4/1 w/o Sh. Hem Raj s/o /54/l,23/ Lachhman Dass. 2/24/1 3. Jagdish Kumar s/o 10M 30.7.86 30.7.86 5000/- 54/1,23/1, Nasib Chand 67//3/1 4. Smt.AnjuBallaw/o 7M 19.4.85 29.4.85 3500/- 54/1,23/1 Subhash Chander s/o 24/1. BhagatRam 5. Smt.Naresh Rani w/o 10M 10.12.86 10.12.86 5000/- 54/1,23/2 Brij Mohan Kumar. 6. Balwant Singh s/o 12M 15.9.86 15.9.86 4000/- 54/1,23/1 Lachhman Singh son 67/1,3/1 of Hoko Chand. 7. Shiv Lal Sharma son of 6M 12.7.88 12.7.88 3000/- 54/1,18/2 Milkhi Ram son of Labhu Ram 8. Sadhu Ram son of Sidu 10M 15.1.88 18.1.88 5000/- 54/1,23/2 Ram son of Daulat Ram 9. Kewal Krishan s/o 10M 10.3.88 10.3.88 5000/- 54/l,18/2 Sh. Gurdas Ram s/o Munshi Ram. 10.Smt. Hardeep Kaur s/o 17M 23.8.88 23.8.88 6000/- 54/1,18/2 Gian Singh son of Dharain Singh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The grievance of the complaint is that the respondent did not obtain any licence for selling his land in plots as required u/s 4(2) of the Act whereby he had converted his aforesaid land into a colony for residential industrial/commercial and other such purposes and thereby contravened the provisions of Sections 3(1) and 8(1) of the said Act.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard. The main grievance on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned trial Court has dismissed the complaint mainly on the ground that the complainant did not appear as a witness even though number of opportunities were granted to the complainant for this purpose.

Apart from legal infirmity referred to above Sh. Kulbushan Dutt PW1 and Jaspal Singh Sarpanch have not supported the prosecution case that the respondent had converted his land into a colony. Apart from that, it is not the case of the complainant either that the land of the respondent is situated in any urban or sub-urban or contiguous area or that the sales in respect thereof in any manner relate to urbanisation or concern sales residential plots in the Urban or Sub-urban or contiguous areas. The land of the respondent is situated in remote rural area away from urban or sub-urban area so far notified by the State. Thus, in the absence of any specific allegations in the complaint that the land sold in the instant case is meant for urbanisation or relate, to meet the demand for residential plots in any urban sub-urban or contiguous area, no violation of the act is made out. Thus the stringent provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. I find support in my view from Single Bench authority of this Court reported as Hardam Singh. v. The State of Punjab (1983) 85 P.L.R. 657 and State of Punjab Vs. Sh. Gurmukh Singh, . Thus, no useful purpose would be served if the case is remanded for the examination of the complainant.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision-petition nor the impugned order passed on 12.2.1991 suffers from any legal infirmity. This petition is accordingly dismissed.