J.S.KHEHAR, J. - (1.)LEARNED counsel for the parties are agreed that common questions of fact and law arise for determination in 25 writ petitions, namely, CWP Nos. 1996, 2252, 2261, 2266, 2290, 2294, 2298, 2305, 2332, 2334, 2348, 2349, 2357, 2358, 2463, 3050, 3334, 4724, 4477, 4635, 4653, 4654, 4666 and 4723 of 2003. At the option of the learned counsel for the petitioner, arguments have been advanced on the basis of pleadings in CWP No. 2294 of 2003. Accordingly, in the instant order, facts have been taken from the pleadings in CWP No. 2294 of 2003.
(2.)THE proprietor of the petitioner-Ahuja Vaishno Dhaba No. 1, Krishna Lal, purchased land comprised in Killa No. 172//9/1(2-17), 10/1 (1-8) in the revenue estate of village Murthal, Tehsil Sonepat, adjoining the G.T. road, through a registered sale deed dated 30.10.1986. It is the case of the petitioner that he constructed a building thereon for using it as a "dhaba" in 1986 itself. It is further the case of the petitioner that the building constructed over the land in question is exclusively owned by the petitioner and as such no part of the building can be described as an encroachment on Government land.
On 8.7.2002, the District Town Planner, Sonepat, exercising the powers of the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under section 12(2) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963'). Section 12 mentioned above is being extracted hereunder :-

"12. Offences and penalties :- (1) Any person who :- (a) erects or re-erects any building or makes or extends any excavation or lays out any means of access to a road in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 6 or in contravention of any conditions imposed by an order under Section 8 or Section 10, or (b) Uses any land in contravention of the provision of sub-section (1) of section 7 or Section 10, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees but not less than ten thousand rupees and, in the case of a continuing contravention, with a further fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for every day after the date of the first conviction during which he is proved to have persisted in the contravention. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Director may, by notice, served by post and if a person avoids service, or is not available for service of notice, or refuses to accept service, then by affixing a copy of it on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of such premises, or in such other manner as may be prescribed, call upon any person who has committed a breach of the provisions referred to in the said sub- section to stop further construction and to appear and show cause why he should not be ordered to restore to its original state or to bring it in conformity with the provisions of the Act or the rules, as the case may be, any building or land in respect of which a contravention such as described in the said sub-section has been committed and if such person fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the Director within a period of seven days, the Director may pass an order requiring him to restore such land or building to its original state or to bring it in conformity with the provisions of the Act or the rules, as the case may be, within a further period of seven days. (3) If the order made under sub-section (2) is not carried out, within the specified period, the Director may himself at the expiry of the period of this order, take such measures as may appear necessary to give effect to the order and the cost of such measures shall, if not paid on demand being made to him, be recoverable from such persons as arrears of land revenue : Provided that even before the expiry of seven days period mentioned in the order under sub-section (2), if the Director is satisfied that instead of stopping the erection of re-erection of the building or making or extending of the excavation or laying out of the means of access to a road, as the case may be, the person continues with the contravention, the Director may himself take such measures as may appear necessary to give effect to the order and the cost of such measures, shall, if not paid on demand being made to him, be recoverable from such person as arrears of land revenue."
A perusal of the show-cause notice read with the written statement filed by the respondents reveals that the petitioner was being accused of having violated three provisions of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. Firstly, it was alleged that the petitioner has laid out a means of access to the G.T. Road (which undisputedly is a scheduled road in terms of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963). The aforesaid action on the part of the petitioner was allegedly in violation of Section 3 of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. Section 3, mentioned above, is being reproduced hereunder :-
"3. Prohibition to erect ore re-erect building along scheduled roads :- No person shall erect or re-erect any building or make or extend any excavation or lay out any means of access to a road within one hundred meters of either side of the road reservation of a bye-pass or within thirty meters on either side of the road reservation of any scheduled road not being bye- pass : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to :- (a) the repair to a building which was in existence immediately before the commencement of this Act or any erection or re-erection of such a building which does not involve any structural alteration or addition therein; or (b) the erection or re-erection of a building, which was in existence immediately before the commencement of this Act and which involves any structural alteration or addition with the permission of the Director; or (c) the laying out of any means of access to a road with the permission of the Director; or (d) the erection or re-erection of a mortar fuel-filling station or a bus- quene-shelter with the permission of the Director; or (e) "the public utility buildings" and "community assets" which were in existence immediately before the commencement of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development (Haryana Second Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996. Explanation :- (1) "Public utility buildings" means buildings belonging to Government, Government Controlled Organisations, Local Bodies, Voluntary Organisations and individuals which are being used for the benefit of public at large without profit motive; and (2) "Community assets" means assets belonging to Government Controlled Organisations, Local Bodies, Voluntary Organisations and individuals which are created for the beneficial use of public at large without profit motive."
Secondly, it was alleged in the show-cause notice, that the construction effected by the petitioner had been made in an area which had been notified as a "controlled area" under Section 4 of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, without the previous permission of the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, and as such the construction (which is admittedly not for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture) was in violation of Section 6 of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. Section 6 mentioned above is being extracted hereunder :-
"6. Erection or re-erection of building etc. in controlled areas :- Except as provided hereinafter, no person shall erect or re-erect any building or make or extend any excavation or lay out any means or access to a road in a controlled area save in accordance with the plans and the restrictions and conditions referred to in section 5 and with the previous permission of the Director : Provided that no such permission shall be necessary for erection or re- erection of any building if such building is used or is to be used for agricultural purpose or purposes subservient to agriculture."
Thirdly, it was alleged in the show-cause notice, that the land owned by the petitioner was being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was being used at the time of issuance of the notification under section 4(1) of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. In this behalf, it was pointed out that the petitioner had not obtained any licence from the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, prior to effecting the change of land use. As such it was alleged that the petitioner had violated the provisions of Section 7 of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. Section 7 mentioned above is being extracted hereunder :-
"7. Prohibition on use of land in controlled areas :- (1) No land within the controlled area shall, except with the permission of the Director, and on payment of such conversion charges as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time 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, and no land within such controlled area shall be used for the purposes of a charcoal-kiln, lime-kiln, brick-kiln or bricks field or for quarrying stone, bajri, surkhi, kankar or for other similar extractive or ancillary operation except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence from the Director on payment of such fees and under such conditions as may be prescribed. (1A) Local authorities, firms and undertakings of Government, colonizers and persons exempted from obtaining a licence under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, and authorities involved in land development will also be liable to pay conversion charges but they shall be exempt from making an application under section 8 of this Act. (2) The renewal of such licences may be made after three years on payment of such fees as may be prescribed."

(3.)THE petitioner submitted a detailed written response dated 16.7.2002 to the show cause notice dated 8.7.2002. A perusal of the written response reveals that the petitioner alleged that no valid notification had been issued under Section 4 of Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, declaring the land owned by the petitioner (fully described above) as "controlled area". It was, therefore, asserted that the construction made by the petitioner over the land owned by him, could not be considered to have been effected, in violation of the provisions of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. In order to assail the validity of the notification under section 4 of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, the primary contention advanced (in the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner) was that the notification issued under section 4 dated 9.10.1986 having not been published in at least two newspapers printed in a language other than English (as per the mandate of Section 4(2) of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963), could not be treated as valid. It was also contended that the construction of "dhaba" by the petitioner on the land owned by his was beyond 30 meters of the G.T. road and as such the construction effected by the petitioner was not in violation of any of the provisions of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. It was also emphatically submitted that there was several Government buildings like Food Corporation of India godowns, Electricity Grid Stations, Sports School at Rai, as well as a number of other Government offices situated in close proximity to the petitioner's "dhaba", but no action had been taken in respect of the said buildings. In continuation of the aforesaid plea, it was alleged that two factories, namely, Gyatri Motor station and another service station are also located in the vicinity of the "dhaba", where the owners had effected construction in the same manner as the petitioner, but no action had been taken against them. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was alleged that the petitioner was being unfairly discriminated against. Last of all, in the reply to the show-cause notice, it was asserted that the petitioner was willing to deposit conversion charges for compounding the alleged violations committed by the petitioner, in terms of the provisions of Section 7 of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963.