Surya Kant, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is stated to be a Charitable Trust set up for the purpose of carrying out philanthropic activities in and around Mata Mansa Devi Temple near Chandigarh. The Trust has impugned the notification dated 21.03.1972 whereby revenue estate of village Bhainsa Tibba, District Panchkula was brought within the ambit of Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 and consequently ban on new constructions unless sanctioned by the competent authority, was imposed. The Trust also impugns the order dated 29.01.1991 (Annexure P5) whereby it was directed to stop construction of nine shops which are an integral part of the dharamshala. The case of the petitioner is that the entire area of village Bhainsa Tibba could not have been brought within the purview of 1952 Act and the action of the authorities in this regard does not stand to the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Trust also relies upon Section 12 -A of the Act which, inter alia, enables the authorities to compound the construction already raised on deposit of composition fee. It is urged that the buildings/structures owned by the petitioner -Trust were constructed much before the Act came into force in the area of village Bhainsa Tibba.
(2.) THE State of Haryana and its District Town Planner, Panchkula have filed the written statement maintaining that the provisions of 1952 Act have been extended around the Union Territory of Chandigarh to ensure regulated development of the peripheral area. It is, however, admitted in para 4 of the written statement that earlier land in dispute was in possession of an industrial unit but the construction was converted into dharamshala in the year 1982. The petitioner's plea that the Trust runs charitable activities has not been seriously controverted. The respondents have further contended that since construction was raised without permission of the competent authority, the impugned action directing the petitioner to restore the land to its original condition is fully justified. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
(3.) IT may be mentioned at the outset that the operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court way back on 05.02.1991 and that order is still operative.;