- (1.) The petitioner-firm purchased a piece of land situated in Mauza Patti Chaudhry near new Anaj Mandi, Kaithal, for a sum of Rs. 57,800/-, vide two registered sale-deeds dated 15.7.1974 and 31.5.1974 with the object of installing Rice and General Mills. It applied to the Director, Food and Civil Supplies, Haryana, in 1975 for permission to install the Mills on this land by submitting site plan thereof, which permission, the petitioner claims, was granted after due verification. The petitioner also applied and secured a loan of rupees two lakhs from the Haryana Financial Corporation for the purpose. After completing all the necessary formalities, the petitioner carried out and completed the construction of the building of the Mills on this land on 19.5.1975. It spent Rs. 1,46,698.32, i.e., Rs. 61,507/- as the cost of the land and other charges and Rs. 85,191.32 as the cost of construction. It also installed machinery of the value of Rs. 1,06,431.53 in the building so constructed. It asserts that, till the construction of the building was completed and the machinery was installed therein, no objection whatsoever was raised by any authority of the State of Haryana.
(2.) The petitioner, however, later on, received a notice dated 14.1.1977 (Annexure P.5) from the Divisional Town Planner, Kurukshetra, respondent No. 3, who purportly exercising the powers of the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, under sections 9, 12 and 16 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), requiring it to stop 'further' construction and show cause why it should not be ordered to restore the land. It was alleged therein that the construction was in contravention of sections 3, 6, 7(1), 8 and 10 of the Act. The petitioner, through his letter Annexure P.6, explained its position and brought to the notice of the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, respondent No. 2, that the building of the Mills had already been constructed, that no violation of the aforesaid provisions of law had taken place and also made a request that its land and the Mills should be released from the provisions of the Act. Respondent No. 2, vide its letter dated 4.5.1977 (Annexure P.7), informed the petitioner that, according to the policy of the State Government for the unauthorised construction, Rs. 25,576/- was being assessed as composition-fee and Rs. 13,128.44 as conversion charges, i.e., Rs. 38,704.44 in all and that, if it agreed to make this payment, the case of the petitioner would be considered for compounding. It appears that the petitioner made a representation against the proposed levy of composition-fee, to which reply dated 6.7.1977 (Annexure P.8) was given by respondent No. 2 asserting that if it wanted the permission to use the land for the Mills, it could be so done after making payment of Rs. 38,704.44 as composition-fee and conversion charges. The petitioner made another representation dated 18.7.1977 (Annexure P.9) which was turned down by respondent No. 2, vide its letter dated 22.9.1977 (Annexure P.10). The petitioner was once again required by respondent No. 2, vide letter dated 1.12.1977 (Annexure P.11), to deposit the said amount of composition-fee and conversion charges by 12.12.1977, failing which, action would be taken against it for the unauthorized construction under the law. As a sequel thereto, on non-payment of the aforesaid amount by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 served the petitioner with a notice dated 24.2.1978 (Annexure P.12) requiring it to restore the land, implying thereby to demolish the building of the Mills. The petitioner has consequently preferred the present writ-petition in this Court, praying for quashing of the notices Annexures P.5 and P.12 and letters Annexures P.7, P.8, P.10 and P.11, by asserting that no notification was issued under section 4 of the Act for declaration of the land, where the building for the Mills was constructed by it, as ''controlled area''; that no plan for any such ''controlled area'' had been prepared, approved or finalized in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Act.
(3.) Respondent No. 2 filed written statement dated 13.7.1978 and also submitted a supplementary affidavit dated 9.8.1978. A preliminary objection has been taken to the effect that the petitioner had agreed to the compounding of the offence and, as such, it was estopped from maintaining the writ petition. It was further asserted that, since a remedy, by way of an appeal under section 10 of the Act, was available to the petitioner, which was not availed of, the writ-petition ought not to be entertained. On merits, it was asserted that a declaration of ''controlled area'' in respect of the of the land where the petitioner had constructed the building for the Mills, was issued, vide the Haryana Government Notification No. 9858-5DP/71/3652 dated 25.8.1971. It was further maintained that the draft plan had been prepared and published but the same was still under consideration and that final plan had not been published at yet.;