http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2671 of 2004

PETITIONER: Rajinder Singh

RESPONDENT: State of Haryana & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/12/2004

BENCH: C.J.I. R.C. LAHOTI, G.P. MATHUR & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

With

(C.A. No.2684/2004, C.A. No.2682/2004, C.A. No.  2696/2004, C.A. No.2686/2004, C.A. No.2681/2004,  C.A. No.2695/2004, C.A. No.2670/2004, C.A.  No.2688/2004, C.A. No.2679/2004, C.A. No.2698/2004,  C.A. No.2697/2004, C.A. No.2693/2004, C.A.  No.2690/2004, C.A. No.2678/2004, C.A. No.2683/2004,  C.A. No.2689/2004, C.A. No.2694/2004, C.A.  No.2699/2004, C.A. No.2685/2004, C.A. No.2680/2004,  C.A. No.2692/2004, C.A. No.2687/2004, C.A.  No.2711/2004, and C.A. No.2712/2004)

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2697 OF 2004

               The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.2294 of 2003 on  the file of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is the appellant in this  Appeal.   The Appeal challenges the decision of the High Court  dismissing the writ petition.   Civil Writ Petition No.2294 of 2003 was  heard along with a number of other writ petitions filed by persons  similarly situated and was treated as the main case.  Before the High  Court, it was the common case of the parties in the various writ  petitions that the facts and the position in law in all the cases were  typical of the facts and law arising in Civil Writ Petition (CWP)  No.2294 of 2003 and that the decision in C.W.P. No.2294 of 2003 will  govern all the cases and hence may be treated as the main case.   The  High Court acceded to this request and answered the main points in  CWP No.2294 of 2003.   Finding against the case of the writ petitioner,  the writ petition was dismissed.  Applying the decision, the other writ  petitions were also dismissed.  Appeals were filed against those  decisions also. The appeals were heard together. The present appeal  arising from the main judgment was treated as the main appeal.   The  questions arising for decision being common, the decision in this  appeal would govern the various cases heard along with it, in addition  to the peculiar facts situation prevailing in some of them.

2.              The appellant herein purchased an extent of land  comprising Killa No.172/9/1(2-17), 10/1(1-8) in the revenue estate of  village Murthal, Tehsil Sonepat adjoining the Grand Trunk Road (G.T.  Road) as per sale deed dated 30.10.1986.   The land was agricultural  land.   The appellant claimed that he constructed what he calls a  ’Dhaba’ in the land in the same year.   He has not given the details  regarding the construction or the time of construction.  He did not seek

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

any permission for putting the land to a use different from agriculture,  or for putting up the construction.   On 8.7.2002, the District Town  Planner, Sonepat, exercising the powers of the Director, Town and  Country Planning, Haryana, issued a notice to the appellant under  Section 12(2) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas  Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter  referred to as the ’Development Act’) calling upon the appellant to stop  further construction and to appear in his office and to show cause why  he should not be ordered to restore the land to its original state, which  was in the controlled area of Sonepat in terms of the Development Act.    The said notice brought to the notice of the appellant that he was  putting up the construction in a controlled area under the Development  Act; that he had laid out an access to the Grant Trunk Road (G.T.  Road) in contravention of Section 6 of the Development Act; that he  had also contravened Sections 8 and 10 of the Development Act; and  that he had used the land in contravention of Section 7(1) of the  Development Act.   The notice called upon the appellant to stop further  construction and to remove the unauthorized construction and restore  the land to its original condition.   The appellant filed a reply dated  16.7.2002, to the show cause notice claiming that the ’Dhaba’ had been  constructed outside 30 meters from the road reserve and even if  a part  of it fell within 30 meters, the dispute was pending before the tribunal  created under the Development Act.  His substantive defence was that  there was no notice of publication of the Development plan of  controlled area till that date, in the official gazette, and he could not be  found guilty of violation of Sections 4 and 5 of the Development Act.    The area had not been declared as controlled area under the  Development Act.   The appellant was ready and willing to pay the  conversion charges, if any, under Section 7 of the Development Act.   He also raised a contention that he was being treated with  discrimination, since there were other constructions belonging to the  government and others in the locality, presumably violating the  provisions of the Development Act and no steps were taken against  those constructions.   The authority, by order dated 23.7.2002, rejected  the contentions of the appellant and found that the provisions of the  Development Act had been violated by the appellant.   The Director,  Town and Country Planner Department, therefore, called upon the  appellant to remove his unauthorized construction and restore the land  to its original condition.

3.              The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal  constituted under the Development Act, 1963.   The appeal was heard  along with various other appeals.   The tribunal, on a consideration of  the relevant aspects, came to the conclusion that the Director, Town  and Country Planning Department was justified in passing the order  since there had been a clear violation of the provisions of the  Development Act, 1963 by the appellant and others.    Thus, the appeal  filed by the appellant and the connected appeals were dismissed.   The  appellant and the others challenged the orders of the Tribunal before  the High Court in various writ petitions.   The case of the appellant, as  indicated earlier, was treated as the main writ petition and the High  Court, on a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Development  Act, 1963 in the light of the steps taken under the Development Act,  1963 and the facts obtaining in the case, and the arguments raised,  dismissed the writ petition affirming the order of the tribunal.   It also  dismissed the connected writ petitions filed by others.   This appeal,  challenges the main decision rendered by the High Court of Punjab and  Haryana and the connected appeals challenge the decisions in the  respective writ petitions filed by the appellants therein.

4.              The High Court dealt with in detail the contentions raised  on behalf of the petitioners.  It referred to the relevant provisions of the  Act and the objects sought to be achieved by the Act.  It also  considered the scope of Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 12 of the Act in the light  of the other relevant provisions and came to the conclusion that on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

coming into force of the Act on 30.11.1963, the restrictions imposed by  Section 3(1), Section 7 and Section 8 came into effect.  It, therefore,  held that the violation of those provisions could be dealt with by the  Authority under the Act.  It noticed the fact that in the case on hand the  final development plan of the controlled area in question in terms of  Section 5 of the Act was finalized and published in the Official Gazette  on 26.5.1973.  On the argument based on the mandatory nature of the  requirement under Section 4(2) of the Act, the High Court held that  there was compliance with the requirement and there was no time limit  as such fixed for compliance with the said requirement.  On facts, it  also found that the purchases and constructions were after the  publications in the newspapers themselves.  Finding that there was no  answer to the charges of violation of Section 3(1) of the Act, Section  7(1) of the Act and Section 8 of the Act, the High Court held that the  petitioners were not entitled to any relief from that Court and the  Tribunal and the Original Authority were fully justified it directing  removal of unauthorized constructions put up in agricultural lands  without permission, without obtaining an approved plan and in  violation of Section 3 of the Development Act.  The pleas that there  was violation of natural justice and that there was procedural defect in  the disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal, were also overruled.  Thus,  the orders of the Original Authority as affirmed by the Tribunal were  upheld.

5.      Though various contentions were raised in the petition for  special leave to appeal in this Court, the main argument that was  pressed before us was that the requirement of Section 4(2) was  mandatory and so long as that mandate had not been complied with, the  notification of the declaration under Section 4(1) of the Act notifying  the areas as controlled areas remained incohate in spite of it being  published in the Gazette and that any construction made in a so called  controlled area could not be objected to, if the construction was prior to  the date of publication of the notification in two newspapers other than  in English language.  There was no argument based on alleged  violation of natural justice put forward before the High Court but  argument was raised that there was no proper service of notice on the  petitioners and as contemplated by the Act.  No argument was made  that the final development plan had not been finalized, a contention that  was raised before the High Court.  It was not disputed that if there was  a violation of Section 3 of the Act, action could be taken, whether the  area was a controlled area or not.  The questions raised are dealt with  hereunder.

6.              The Development Act, 1963 came into force on  30.11.1963.   It was an Act to prevent haphazard, sub-standard  development along scheduled roads and in controlled areas in the State  of Punjab.   Subsequently, by the Haryana Adaptation of Laws Order  1968, the Act was adapted by the State of Haryana and extended to the  whole of that State.    Section 2(1) of the Development Act, 1963  defined ’agriculture’.   A Bypass was defined by Section 2(3) of the  Act.   Section 2(5) of the Act defined a controlled area as meaning an  area declared under Section 4 of the Act to be a controlled area.    Section 2(9) of the Act defined the expression ’road reservation’ in  relation to a scheduled road and Section 2(10) defined a ’scheduled  road’ as meaning a road specified in the schedule to the Act and as  including a bypass.   The other definitions are not being referred to for  the moment, since they are not relevant for our purpose.   Section 3  enacted a prohibition against erection or re-erection of a building along  side scheduled roads.   There was no dispute before us that the G.T.  Road was a scheduled road and that any violation of Section 3(1) of  The Development Act, 1963 could be dealt with under the Act and the  constructions got removed.   Section 3(1) prohibits a person from  erecting or re-erecting  any building or laying out any means of access  to a road within 100 meters of either side of the road reservation of a  bypass or within 30 meters on either side of the road reservation or any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

scheduled road,  not being  a bypass.    Certain exceptions are provided  with which we are not concerned except to notice that an exemption  attempted to be provided in respect of public utility buildings and  community assets was declared unconstitutional by the High Court of  Punjab and Haryana.   Section 4 of the Act, by sub-section (1), gave  power to the government to declare by a notification, the whole or any  part of any area adjacent to and within a distance of 8 kilometers on the  outer side of the boundary of any town; or two kilometers on the outer  side of the boundary of any industrial or housing estate, public  institution or an ancient and historical monument, as a controlled area  for the purposes of The Development Act, 1963.   Sub-section (2)  provided that the government shall also cause the contents of the  declaration made under sub-section (1) to be published in at least two  newspapers printed in a language other than English.   There is no  dispute that in the case on hand, though the declaration was notified in  the Official Gazette on 21.12.1971,  the same was published in  newspapers only in the year 1991, on 26.3.1991 in an English daily The  Tribune, on 25.3.1991 in the Hindi daily Jan Sandesh and on 9.4.1991  in the daily Dainik Amar Rajnitik.    Section 5 contemplates the  publication of plans in the prescribed manner showing the controlled  area and therein the nature of restrictions and conditions proposed to be  made applicable to the controlled area and providing for submission of  plans to the government.   Sub-section (2) provides for what the plan  should indicate.   Under sub-section (3), the government has the power  either to approve the plan with or without modification or reject the  plan with a direction to the Director to prepare a fresh plan according to  its directions.    Under sub-section (4), the government was to cause to  be published by a notification the plans approved by it under Section  5(3) of the Development Act.     Under sub-section (5), the parties had  the right to object to the proposals.     The Director was to give an  opportunity of being heard to such objectors under sub-section (6) and  after doing so, under sub-section (7), make recommendations to the  government and the government had to decide as to the final plans  showing the controlled area.   The same had to be published in the  Official Gazette and in such other manner as may be prescribed.   Sub \026 section (8) enabled a provision to be made by Rules with respect to the  form and contents of the plans and with respect to the procedure to be  followed and any other matter in connection with the preparation,  submission and approval of the plans.    The government, under sub- section (9), had also the power to direct the Director to furnish any  other information that the government may want for the purpose of  approving the plans submitted to it under Section 5 of the Development  Act.   Section 6 prevented a person from erecting or re-erecting any  building or laying out an access to a road save in accordance with the  plans and restrictions and conditions referred to in Section 5 of the  Development Act and with the previous permission of the Director.    The proviso enabled a construction to be made without permission if it  was to be used for agricultural purposes.   Section 7 prohibits the use of  land in controlled areas.   No land within the controlled area could be  used for purposes other than those for which it was used on the date of  publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the  Development Act except with the permission of the Director and on  payment of the conversion charges as may be prescribed.       Section  7A confers a power on the government to relax in public interest, any  of the restrictions or conditions, insofar as they relate to land use  prescribed in the controlled area in exceptional circumstances.   Section  8 provides for filing of applications for permission and for grant or  refusal thereof.   Section 9 confers a power of entry on the Director or a  person authorized by him in that behalf.    Section 10 provides a right  of appeal to a person who was aggrieved by an order on an application  filed under Section 8 of the Act.   Section 10A of the Development Act  confers a power of revision by the government and Section 10B confers  a power of review on the Director.   Section 11 provides that the  Director shall carry out such directions as may be issued to him from  time to time by the government for the efficient administration of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

Development Act.   Section 12 provides for offences and penalties and  makes contraventions of the provisions of Sections 3, 6, 8 and 10 and  the user of land in contravention of Section 7(1) or Section 7 of the  Development Act, punishable.    Section 14 provides for composition  of offences.    Section 16 provides for sanction of prosecution.     Section 21 of the Development Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil  court.   Section 23 provides that nothing in the Development Act would  affect the operation of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act,  1952, and the Punjab Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act,  1961.     Sub-section (2) of Section 23 gives over-riding effect to the  provisions of the Development Act and the Rules notwithstanding  anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law.    Section  25 of the Act confers the rule making power on the government.   For  completion, it may be noted that the G.T. Road (from Delhi to Amritsar  and on the border with Pakistan) is the first item in the Schedule of  Scheduled Roads within the purview of Section 3(1) of the  Development Act. 7.              To recapitulate, though a declaration was notified in the  Official Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Development Act specifying  the controlled area as early as on 21.12.1971; on 31.10.86 when the  appellant purchased the plot of land in question, the publication had not  been effected in the newspapers as contemplated by Section 4(2) of the  Act.  Though there was some controversy in pleadings whether the plan  as contemplated by Section 5 of the Act had been published, at the time  of hearing, there was no dispute that a plan had been published as  contemplated by Section 5 of the Development Act.  But the  publication of the declaration as contemplated in Section 4(2) of the  Development Act in two newspapers printed in a language other than  English, was made only in the months of March and April 1991.   In  that context, it was the contention on behalf of the appellant that the  declaration notified under Section 4(1) of the Development Act on  21.12.1971 in the Official Gazette was incohate and did not come into  force in view of the failure of the government to have it published in at  least two newspapers printed other than in English, as mandated by  Section 4(2) of the Development Act.     It was, therefore, contended  that the area had not become a ’controlled area’ within the meaning of  Section 4(1) of the Development Act and consequently, no action could  be taken against the appellant for putting up a construction against the  terms of the Development Act in a controlled area.   It was further  submitted that once there was no proper declaration of the area as a  controlled area, there could be no violation of Section 6 or 7 of the  Development Act and consequently, the appellant or his construction,  could not be visited with any consequence under the Development Act.    We may notice that the argument in the High Court was that the delay  in publishing the declaration in two newspapers was a colourable  exercise of power.

8.              On the scheme of the Development Act an area becomes a  controlled area by the government declaring it to be so by a notification  under Section 4(1) of the Development Act.   No doubt Section 4(2) of  the Development Act provides that the government shall also cause the  contents of the declaration made under Section 4(1) to be published in  at least two newspapers printed in a language other than English.  What  is argued on behalf of the appellant is that Section 4(2) of the  Development Act is mandatory and so long as a declaration notified in  an Official Gazette  under Section 4(1) of the Development Act, is not  followed by the publication of the contents of that declaration in two  language newspapers under Section 4(2) of the Development Act, the  declaration of the controlled area does not come into force and  consequently the area could not be deemed to be a controlled area.   It  is also submitted as a corollary  that publication in two language  newspapers about 20 years after the publication of  the declaration in  the Official Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Development Act is of no  avail since it was unreasonable to allow such long lapse of time  between the notification and the publication.      This is met by counsel

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

appearing for the State by submitting that on a declaration under  Section 4(1) of the Act being published in the Official Gazette followed  by the issuance of a draft plan in terms of Section 5(1) of the  Development Act, the area becomes a controlled area and any  construction therein thereafter could only be in terms of the  Development Act and after obtaining prior permission from the  Director and any change in use of the land should also be only after  seeking and obtaining permission from the Director.   It is contended  that the delay in making the publication in the newspapers cannot have  the effect of nullifying the declaration already issued in the Official  Gazette which is normally the mode of publication of governmental  orders and notifications and it is also the mode prescribed by Section  4(1) of the Development Act.    It is also submitted that Section 4(2) of  the Development Act is not mandatory and though the expression  ’shall’ is used therein, what the sub-section really provides is that the  government shall also cause the contents of the declaration to be  published in two newspapers other than English and this shows that the  requirement was not mandatory  (emphasis supplied).

9.              The High Court, dealing with this contention, after  noticing the conspectus of the Development Act, the purpose sought to  be achieved by it and the earlier directions issued by that Court to  implement the provisions of the Development Act took the view that it  was not possible to hold that the delayed publication of the contents of  the declaration under Section 4(2) of the Development Act and the  delayed finalization  of the final development plan under Section 5 of  the Development Act would affect the declaration under Section 4(1) of  the Development Act.   In fact, it may be noted that what was  contended before the High Court was that the declaration under Section  4(1) of the Development Act remained inchoate for want of publication  of its contents in two language newspapers and that the belated  publication in two language newspapers amounted to a colorable  exercise of power.  Whatever it may be, the question is whether the fact  that the contents of the declaration notified under Section 4(1) of the  Development Act was published in two language newspapers only at a  subsequent point of time would justify our holding that the declaration  notified under Section 4(1) of the Development Act never came into  force at all and whether it could be held that the area in question did not  become a ’controlled area’ within the meaning of the Development Act.    Actually, on the facts of almost all of these cases, the purchases, or at  least the attempted constructions were after the publications in  Newspapers and in those cases, this argument may not even be  available to the appellants.

10.             In addition to the indication available in Section 4(2) of  the Development Act in view of the stipulation that the government  shall also cause the contents to be published in two newspapers, we  find that both Section 5(1) and 7(1) of the Development Act, speak  only of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the  Development Act and not the publication of the contents of the  declaration in terms of Section 4(2) of the Development Act.     This, in  our view, indicates that the requirement of Section 4(2) of the  Development Act was not made mandatory by the legislature.    No  doubt the legislature wanted the people within the proposed controlled  area to know of the declaration issued by the government and that was  sought to be achieved by directing that the said declaration also be  published in two language newspapers other than in English.    But  from this it cannot be inferred that without such publication of the  contents in two newspapers the declaration already issued in terms of  Section 4(1) of the Development Act in the Official Gazette remains  still born or inchoate or of no consequence.   In this context we cannot  ignore the object sought to be achieved by the Act and the scheme of  the Act in defining a controlled area as indicated by Section 4(1) itself.

11.             It is argued on behalf of the appellant in the present appeal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

and by counsel in support of the other appeals that at best the  notification could be treated as becoming effective only from the date  of publication of the contents of the declaration in two language  newspapers and cases in which the construction had been made after  the notification of the declaration under Section 4(1) of the Act and  before the publication of its contents in two newspapers should be held  to be not violative of the provisions of the Development Act.     The  decision in Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad  and another  vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal (  1985 (3) SCC  1 ) was relied on to contend  that the requirement for giving public notice of the substance of the  notified declaration was mandatory, but it has to be noticed that the said  decision related to the giving of public notice of the substance of the  notification under Section 4(1) of the Land  Acquisition Act, 1894 and  the scope of the Land Acquisition Act is obviously different from the  Development Act which only seeks to control the user of the land and  does not deprive the owner of his rights over the land.   Moreover, on  the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, the publication of the contents  in the locality has much relevance and it is not merely for conveying  information to the members of the public.  It appears to us that the  decisions based on the Land Acquisition Act in that regard are clearly  distinguishable, on the language of Section 4(2) of the Act, the object  sought to be achieved and the nature of the prohibition contained in the  Development Act and the obligation imposed on the owner of the land  by the Development Act.     The argument to the effect that a right  cannot be taken away without following the procedure laid down, based  on the ratio in Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (P)  Ltd. And others  (2003 (2)  SCC 111),  is also of no avail since that  was also a decision under the Land Acquisition Act depriving the  owner of his right to property altogether though, of course, subject to  payment of compensation as provided in that Act. We should not be  understood as saying that the procedure laid down by the Act need not  be followed.   The procedure laid down has been followed but only  after a lapse of time.   In such a situation, especially considering the  object sought to be achieved by The Development Act and the nature of  the restrictions in public interest that are sought to be imposed by the  Act,  it is not possible to uphold a contention that the belated adherence   to the procedure would nullify the very declaration duly notified in the  Official Gazette  in terms of Section 4(1) of The Development Act.     On the scheme of The Development Act it appears to us that the  notification of a declaration under Section 4(1) of The Development  Act in the Official Gazette which is the normal mode of publishing  orders of government for the knowledge of the public in terms of the  General Clauses Act, would bring about the consequences  contemplated by The Development Act.    In this case and in the  connected cases, the contents of the declaration notified under Section  4(1) of The Development Act were also subsequently published in two  newspapers other than in English and in that situation we are inclined  to hold that the procedural requirement has also been satisfied.   Even  apart from that, in view of our conclusion that Section 4(2) of The  Development Act was not mandatory in the sense that the failure to  publish in two newspapers would render the original notification of the  declaration issued under Section 4(1) of The Development Act nonest,  the argument that the area has not become a controlled area cannot be  accepted.    We, therefore, overrule the contention that the area had not  been notified or declared as a controlled area within the meaning of  The Development Act.

12.             The appellant has no case that he had sought for  permission to convert the land which was agricultural land, into non  agricultural land in terms of Section 7(1) of The Development Act.     There is, therefore, a clear transgression of that provision.    Similarly,  that part of the construction that falls within 30 meters of the G.T. Road  or within 100 meters of a bypass road or the laying of an access to the  G.T. Road without prior permission have to be held to be illegal in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

terms of the Development Act.

13.             In that context it was contended that in some of the cases  there was no proper notice to the owners calling upon them to demolish  the construction allegedly put up by them unauthorizedly.   It is seen  from the records that in some cases notices were sent by registered post  and in some of the cases notices were sent under certificate of posting.     The appellants disputed this and pleaded that they have not received the  notices.    The respondents have also pleaded that the notices were also  affixed contemporaneously in the premises in all the cases.    In most of  the cases, this fact was not disputed but it was contended that the mode  of service by affixture could be resorted to only after the notices were  sought to be served in person as prescribed by the Rules.   In the  context of these cases, we see no reason to disbelieve the stand of the  respondents that notices were issued to some of the appellants under  certificate of posting and to some others by registered post and that in  all cases the notices were affixed.    The notices indicate that they were  issued when unauthorized constructions were commenced and they  called upon the owners to stop further constructions.  We must also  notice that having come to know of the notices, the appellants had, in  fact, filed objections.   In addition, it is seen that on the basis of a  direction issued by the High Court, various appellants were given  notices informing them of a right of appeal to the tribunal constituted  under The Development Act against the orders of the Director and such  appeals were filed by all the appellants before the Tribunal.    The  Tribunal had dealt with those appeals and the contentions they had  raised.   The Director had also dealt with the objections raised by the  appellants.    In this situation, nothing turns on the arguments based on  natural justice or the failure to give proper notice.   The High Court, in  our view, has rightly overruled the contentions based on want of notice  or inadequacy of notice.

14.             It is clear from the terms of the Development Act that as  regards the scheduled roads, the Development Act becomes operative  from the date of the Act and any construction in violation of section  3(1) of the Development Act after the coming into force of the  Development Act has to be found to be illegal.   Therefore, the  authorities were fully justified in directing removal of constructions  which fell within 30 meters of a scheduled road or 100 meters of a  bypass to a scheduled road.   We have already held that on the scheme  of the Development Act and in the light of the object sought to be  achieved by the Development Act, the declaration of a controlled area  becomes effective from the date of the notification of the declaration in  terms of Section 4(1) of the Development Act even though the contents  of that declaration are published in two newspapers other than in  English only at a later point of time.    In view of this, in all these cases  the constructions had been put up in controlled areas and that too  without permission of the Director.   In almost all the cases, the  construction has also been put up on agricultural land which again  could not be done without permission in terms of the Development Act.    It is, therefore, clear that there is open transgression of the relevant  provisions of the Development Act and the authorities were fully  justified in directing the appellant and others to remove their  unauthorized constructions.

15.             The Act seeks to achieve the object of leaving clear areas  adjacent to scheduled roads intended for swift and safe moving of  vehicular traffic.   Any attempt to defeat that object by putting  constructions of dhabas, residential or industrial buildings against the  terms of the Development Act, would tend to affect public safety and  endanger lives and property and courts must discourage such attempts.     Lethargy or studied indifference of officials to act promptly cannot be  made use of to thwart public interest.   This has been indicated by the  High Court in its earlier judgments.    It is, therefore, not just or proper  for courts to entertain pleas of technical nature which would tend to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

defeat the object of the Development Act.   Viewed from that context,  we are satisfied that the appellant has not made out any case for  interference and the tribunal and the High Court were fully justified in  not interfering with the action initiated by the authorities concerned for  removal of unauthorized constructions in violation of Section 3(1) of  the Development Act.

16.             Same is the position regarding constructions in controlled  areas.   The purpose of declaring an area, a controlled area, cannot be  allowed to be defeated by recourse to technical pleas, especially by  those who have violated the terms of the statute.  It is seen that except  in one or two cases, the lands were purchased and constructions  without permission were attempted after the declaration was published  in newspapers as envisaged by Section 4(2) of the Act.  In those cases,  these pleas are not even available.  Viewed from the angle of public  interest, when there is notification of the declaration in the Gazette in  terms of Section 4(1) of the Development Act, the same must be given  effect to and any user of land  for purposes other than the original  purpose for which it was used, should be discouraged and the attempt  to put up constructions which would lead to haphazard development of  the controlled area should be prevented and these objects should not be  lost sight of by courts which are concerned with public interest, which  ultimately has to prevail over private interest.   Thus, viewed from any  angle we are satisfied that the decision of the High Court does not call  for interference.

               We, therefore, affirm the decision of the High Court and  dismiss this appeal.  The appellant is given time of two months from  this date to remove the offending construction.   If the appellant fails to  remove the same within that time, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 will get the  construction removed and file a compliance report in this regard.   The  interim order is vacated and the respondents are directed to implement  the Act and the orders passed thereunder.

C.A. No.2685, 2687, 2692, 2696, 2686, 2693, 2695, 2670, 2679, 2682,   2694,2690, 2678, 2683, 2689, 2699,  2680,   2711 and 2712 of 2004

               In almost all these cases the appellants purchased the lands  wherein they put up constructions, found to be unauthorized in terms of  the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction on  Unregulated Development Act, 1963, after the declaration under  Section 4(1) of the Act was notified in the Gazette and it was also  published in two newspapers other than in English language as  contemplated by Section 4(2) of the Act.   The constructions put up  without permission were also thereafter.   It is, therefore, not open to  the appellants to raise a contention that the declaration under Section  4(1) of the Act was inchoate because it was not followed up by  publication of its contents in two newspapers other than in English.  We  have even otherwise held in our Judgment in C.A. No.2697 of 2004,  that the provision for publication under Section 4(2) of the Act in two  newspapers other than in English language was not mandatory.   We  have also held that mere delay in publishing the declaration in two  newspapers would not invalidate the declaration of the area as  controlled area.   In these cases, the appellants put up the constructions  in violation of the statute and without the requisite permissions under  the Act.   Therefore, the authority under the Act, the appellate tribunal  and the High Court rightly dismissed their challenge to the action taken  under the Act.

               We dismiss these appeals.     The appellants are given time  of two months from this date to remove the offending constructions.   If  the appellants fail to remove them within that time, Respondent Nos.1  and 2 will get the constructions removed and file a compliance report in  this regard.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

Civil Appeal No. 2671, 2681, 2684, 2688 and 2698 of 2004                    In these appeals the appellants obtained leases of pieces of  land from Kambopura Gram Panchayat in the year 1986 in violation of  Section 5 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961  and Rule 3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules,  1964.   Since the leases were against the terms of the said Act and the  Rules, the said leases do not confer any right on the appellants and no  right in them to put up any construction that can be recognized.         That apart, in view of our Judgment in C.A. No.2697 of 2004  there is no merit in these appeals.  They are dismissed.   The appellants  are given time of two months from this date to remove the offending  constructions.   If the appellants fail to remove them within that time,  Respondent Nos.1 and 2 will get the constructions removed and file a  compliance report in this regard.