- (1.) The petitioner challenges the order issued by the Director, Town and Country Planning, rejecting an application made by the petitioner for change of land use for setting up a retail outlet as Kisan Sewa Kendra (KSK) at the Village Sondhapur. District Panipat. The three objections, which have been taken, are as follows: i) The proposed site has been taken on lease for 99 years, but takseem intkal/tatima of which has not been submitted. ii) Violation of Section 7(i) of Act No.8 of 1975 has been taken place due to sale purchase of land in the compact block, in which the proposed site is situated. iii) Unauthorized construction has been raised at site in violation of Act No. 41 of 1963.
(2.) Of them, as regards the first objection, the petitioner's contention is that, the property belonged to the father and he had taken it on 99 years lease. It is contended that there is no requirement for such a transfer to be entered in revenue records. The learned counsel for the State would point out to Section 34 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 as applicable to Haryana, that requires any person acquiring, by inheritance, purchase, mortgage, or otherwise, any right in an estate as a landowner, assignee of land revenue or tenant having a right of occupancy, shall report his acquisition of the right to the patwari of the estate. Evidently, the petitioner was under the belief that it was not necessary if he is a close relative. If the authorities would require the proof of mutation, the petitioner could secure the same, for, I would understand Section 34 to be merely a facilitative provision and not a legal mandate to pursue for a person, who has acquired such a right. The Land Revenue Act is essentially to enable the State to know the person, who will be responsible for paying the revenue to the State and a transferee of an interest in immovable property is required to obtain mutation to benefit himself by securing an entry in an official record proclaiming such right as well as enable to State to collect revenue. I will not take this to be a fundamental defect to deny the permission sought for.
(3.) The violation complained of with reference to the transfer of property without the sanction is required under Section 7(i) of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act of 1975, in my view, cannot apply, since the interdict as set out in the Section applies only to a transfer or agreement to transfer in any manner, plots in a ''colony'' among other grounds mentioned therein. The Section reads as under: Prohibition to advertise and transfer plots:- Save as provided in Section 9, no person shall,- (i) without obtaining a licence under Section 3, transfer or agree to transfer in any manner plots in a colony or make an advertisement or receive any amount in respect thereof. (ii) .... (iii) .... Colony'' is also defined under the Act and that includes a housing laying out where the constructions for domestic or commercial use are required to be made and the use of a piece of an agricultural land that has been purchased by the father of the petitioner cannot come within the interdict contained under Section 9. It is no body's case that this is a part of a lay out in a colony.;