Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 172 (PNJ)

Punjab State v. Dharam Pal Seth

2000-02-10

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, MEHTAB S.GILL

body2000
Judgment JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. 1. The Punjab State filed a complaint against Dharam Pal and 5 others under Sec. 11 read with Sections 3 and 8 of the Punjab Regulation of Colonies Act, 1975. It was alleged that the accused were the owners of the land and had sold it for use as residential, commercial and industrial purposes without getting a licence as contemplated under Sec. 4(2) of the Act. The sanction for prosecution was granted by the Director as required under Sec. 13 of the Act. On these premises, it was prayed that the respondents be tried and convicted. 2. The trial Court after examination of the evidence has found that the complaint was barred by limitation and that the charge has not been proved. Thus, all the 6 respondents were acquitted. Aggrieved by the order, the Punjab State, which now describes itself as Punjab Urban Development Authority, has filed this petition for the grant of leave to appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. Ashish Grover, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Mr. Grover does not dispute that the sale transactions had been registered on May 28, 1981. It is also admitted that the statute prescribes a period of three years for the filing of the complaint. According to the complaint, it had come to know of the alleged default on November 4, 1987. Despite that, the complaint was filed only on January 15, 1990. 5. The sale deeds are registered with the Sub-Registrar. It is a public authority. The parties spent money on stamps. The document is present before a public authority. The information is immediately available to the State Government. Despite the registration of the six sale deeds on May 28, 1981, no action was initiated by the petitioner till January 15, 1990. There is an inordinately long delay of more than 8 years. There is no explanation on the record. The complaint is barred by limitation. 6. Mr. Grover submits that the authority had come to know about the default on November 4, 1987. He is, however, unable to refer to any evidence on record which may indicate as to how the authority had suddenly discovered the factual position on November 4, 1987. Who had informed it? How had the information reached it? The learned Counsel is unable to refer to any evidence on the record, which may give any explanation. He is, however, unable to refer to any evidence on record which may indicate as to how the authority had suddenly discovered the factual position on November 4, 1987. Who had informed it? How had the information reached it? The learned Counsel is unable to refer to any evidence on the record, which may give any explanation. Still further, despite having gained knowledge on November 4, 1987, the complaint was filed only on January 15, 1990. Why was there the delay of more than two years even after having gained the knowledge? What was the authority doing for a period of more than two years? Again there is no explanation. 7. The sequence of events clearly shows a totally lackadaisical approach on the part of the Punjab State. The officer concerned has not acted efficiently and in the interest of the State. The authority concerned failed in its duty in not maintaining the liasion with the Sub-Registrar so as to take timely action against the defaulter. It failed to perform the duty enjoined upon it by the statute. We cannot compliment the officer/authority concerned for its conduct. Still further, we are also of the view that even after having gained the knowledge, it did not act swiftly as it ought to have. There was a clear derelication of duty. The motive or purpose for delaying the action even after having gained the knowledge of facts can well be imagined. It does not appear to be totally innocent. 8. Still further, the authority does not take the responsibility for its act. The complaint is filed through apparently a very junior person viz. a Junior Engineer. No responsible officer has filed the complaint. Why was a Junior Engineer sought to be made a scapegoat? There is no explanation. 9. Mr. Ashish Grover contends that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the complaint on the ground that no building was shown to have been raised on the plots. He submits that the actual construction of a building is not the requirement of the provision. It may be so. Yet it was incumbent upon the complainant to show that the action of the accused fell within the mischief of the relevant provision. Mr. Grover has not been able to refer to any evidence to show that in fact, a colony was intended to be set up. It may be so. Yet it was incumbent upon the complainant to show that the action of the accused fell within the mischief of the relevant provision. Mr. Grover has not been able to refer to any evidence to show that in fact, a colony was intended to be set up. The mere division of land into five or more plots cannot be conclusive evidence of a colony having been set up. It has to be further shown that the plots have been carved out for being used "for residential, commercial, industrial or any other building purpose other than for agriculture...." Mr. Grover has not been able to refer to any evidence which may show that the purpose for the sale of plots was not agricultural or any purpose subservient thereto. It appears that a Junior Engineer was made in charge of the case and there was total neglect in its prosecution. That is why, despite the lapse of more than 8 years from January 15, 1990 to May 12, 1998, the petitioner did not produce the relevant evidence. It resulted in avoidable wastage of time of the Court. It caused inconvenience to the respondents. It was wholly unjustified and unfair. 10. The petition is without merit. 11. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Secretary to the Government, Punjab in the department of Urban Development. It shall also be forwarded to the Chief Administrator of the PUDA.The competent authority shall ascertain as to who is the person responsible for conducting the case in a negligent manner. The proceedings shall be initiated against those found responsible. A report shall be submitted to this Court within three months. 12. So far as the petition is concerned, we find no merit. It is, consequently, dismissedPetition dismissed.