PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RANJIT SINGH
LAWS(P&H)-2012-10-476
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on October 18,2012

PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
VERSUS
RANJIT SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Crl. Misc. No.1571 of 2011 For the reasons stated, application is allowed. Delay of 112 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
(2.) Crl. Appeal No. S-95-SB of 2011 The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 6.4.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the judgment and order dated 12.12.2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, has been upheld whereby the respondent has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 36 read with Sections 3/5/8/9/14(2)/21 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. However, the respondent was released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of six months.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the appellant against the respondent alleging that he is owner of land bearing khasra Nos.13//17/2, 18/1, 24 Min. at village Mansoorwal Dona, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, as recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1991- 92. The accused has raised a colony by carving out plots in the abovesaid land in more than 1000 sq. metres area without obtaining licence for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. The said act of the respondent is contrary to the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Act. Accused has sold several plots much after the commencement of the Act, which came into force w.e.f. 15.10.1995. Names of various persons have been mentioned to whom the plots were allegedly sold by the respondent. After the pre-charge evidence, charge was framed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.