PASUPATI HARYANA WOOLLENS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was directed to demolish the "illegal construction". Its appeal to the Commissioner and the Secretary to Government Haryana having been dismissed by order dated December 1, 1992 (Annexure P 8) the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition. A few facts may be noticed

(2.) THE petitioners Company is engaged in manufacturing of Worsted Yarn. The unit is located on the Delhi, Jaipur National Highway in village Dawal. District Rewari, in the State of Haryana. It had initially purchased land measuring 79 kanals 2 marlas. Vide letter dated August 8, 1988, the petitioner had applied for the issue of a 'no Objection Certificate' for the use of agricultural land for industry This permission was granted by the Director (Town and Country Planning), Haryana vide order dated December 9, 1988. Thereafter, the Company purchased another piece of land adjoining the earlier one measuring 10 kanals 11 marlas. It set up an industrial unit on this land. Thereafter, the petitioner applied to the Union of India for permission to construct and approach road from the National Highway. It gave an undertaking to remove any structure which may be required to be removed for carrying out any work of improvement or repair to the road. This permission was granted vide letter dated May 3, 1990 (Annexure P-2 ). The petitioner was, however, informed that the National Highway was proposed to be widened to four lanes in the near future and no assurance for providing a gap in the central verge of this location could be given.

(3.) VIDE letter dated August 21, 1989, the petitioner applied for the issue of a no objection certificate for change of user of Agricultural land for industrial purposes even in respect of the additional land purchased by it. It may be noticed that the petitioner had constructed a boundary wall and a gate-post which fell within the 30 meters restricted belt of the Delhi-Jaipur Scheduled Road in contravention of provisions of Section 3 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Department Act, 1963. In response to the letter dated August 21, 1989, the petitioner was informed that the land owner had committed violation of Section 7 (1) of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 by selling the land and the petitioner-Company had committed an offence under Section 7 (ii) by raising the construction on the additional piece of land without the permission of the Director as required under Section 3. Accordingly, the petitioner was informed that the no objection certificate could not be issued. Vide letter dated July 3, 1990, the petitioner requested the appropriate authority that offence may be compounded. In response to this letter, the Director (Town and Country Planning), vide his letter dated November 9, 1990 directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,16. 950/-as composition charges. He further stated that the 'no Objection Certificate' will be issued on the condition that the petitioner would demolish the construction falling within 30 meters restricted belt of the National Highway i e. Delhi Jaipur Scheduled Road. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 1,16,950/- vide letter dated April. 10. 1991. Further vide letter dated April 20, 1991, the petitioner gave an undertaking that it would demolish the boundary wall and gate post at its own cost within a period of one month The petitioner avers that vide letter dated June 3, 1991 it informed respondent No. 3 that "the process of demolishing the boundary wall and gate-post and construction of the same at the suitable place will take 2-3 months because of Architecture involvement and demarcation of the place where these can be reconstructed. " Request for grant of 3 months' time was thus made. A copy of this letter has been produced as Annexure P-4 In response to this letter, the petitioner was informed vide notice dated July 18, 1991 that the unauthorised structure may be got demolished by July 29, 1991 failing which the needful shall be got done by the District Town Planner, Rewari at the petitioner's expense. A copy of this notice has been produced with the writ petition as Annexure P-5. The petitioner filed a civil suit for the issue of a permanent injunction challenging the above mentioned notice and ad-interim stay was granted to the petitioner. It was ultimately vacated on November 19, 199l. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, which was disposed of in terms of the mutual compromise on May 6, 1992. A copy of the order of the learned Additional District Judge has been produced as Annexure P-6 When the petitioner did not demolish the structure, two notices dated June 11 1992 and July 16, 1992 under Section 10 were served on the petitioner. The latter notice has been produced as Annexure P 7 The petitioner challenged these notices before the State of Haryana. This appeal was dismissed vide order dated December 1, 1992. Finally, the present petition has been filed. The order has been challenged as being without jurisdiction and discriminatory.