Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. The petitioner, who is resident of the State of Punjab, has come up with prayer to quash Licence No. 33 of 1996 granted under the Haryana Development & Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the Rules made thereunder to Respondent No. 11-M/s Amar Nath Aggarwal Investments Private Limited - for setting up plotted/Group Housing Colony at Village Bhagwanpur, Islam Nagar and Chandi Mandir, District Panchkula (Haryana), described in the Schedule attached to the Licence issued by the State Government/Respondent No. 9, as contained in Annexure P5. 1.1 His further prayer is to command Respondent No. 1 to 4 and 7 to discharge their statutory obligations by taking appropriate steps to construct Ghaggar Dam, proposed and planned in the Periphery Control Plan of Chandigarh, as contained in Annexure P1 to P3. 2. In the written statement (filed on behalf of the Chief Secretary, Haryana, Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana-cum-Deputy Commissioner (Periphery)and District Town Planner, Panchkula-Respondent Nos. 7, 9 and 10), it has been stated, inter alia as follows:- The Haryana Government has declared the portion of the periphery area falling in the State of Haryana as controlled area vide Notification dated March 21, 1972 (Annexure R1). As per Section 4 of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery Control) Act, 1952 (as applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a plan showing the area declared as controlled area was prepared and displaced (copy appended as Annexure R/2). With the passage of time, the controlled area became a very potential area for urban development as in addition to the city of Chandigarh, other Centre/State sponsored projects like Headquarters of Western Command at Chandi Mandir, Hindustan Machine Tools, T.B.R.L. and setting up of new satellite town Panchkula came up. To regulate the use of land in order to prevent ill planned and haphazard urbanisation in or around towns in the State of Haryana, the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 was enacted. Under the provisions of that Act, Respondent No. 11 submitted an application seeking Licence for setting up a residential colony. A report from the Executive Engineer, Water Services Division, Ambala, was obtained. Under the provisions of that Act, Respondent No. 11 submitted an application seeking Licence for setting up a residential colony. A report from the Executive Engineer, Water Services Division, Ambala, was obtained. It was felt that there is need for further planned, urbanisation in the absence of which unauthorised, colonisation is bound to take place and, accordingly, a decision was taken at the level of the Government to grant License for the purpose. Simultaneously permission under Section 11 of the Act was also granted. The site for the proposed colony falls within the proposed reservoir area of Ghaggar Dam and, thus, clarifications were sought from the Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana Irrigation, who reported that the colony falls within the reservoir area of the purposed Ghaggar Dham Project and hence is not suitable for developing residential colony. Thereafter Respondent No. 9 decided to withdraw the permission granted under Section 11 of the Act and the Licence granted under Section 3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 by reviewing his order under Section 21 of the said Act. Prior sanction of the Government was obtained and a show cause notice was issued to Respondent No. 11. Respondent No. 11 filed Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 1998 against the notice issued for cancellation of the Licence and the permission. Subsequently, the issue regarding construction of the proposed Dam was examined by the irrigation Department and then the Haryana Government decided that Ghaggar Dam is not in the interest of the State of Haryana. Thus, there is no need to pursue it. Directions have been given to examine viability of realising low cost smaller dams for protection of floods and providing drinking water to Panchkula. In that view of the matter the show cause notice issued to Respondent No. 11 was withdrawn. Accordingly, the development plan of the periphery-controlled area was amended and a new plan was made showing the location of the colony in the urbanisable zone of the periphery-controlled area (copy appended as R4). Hence the Writ petition is devoid of any merit. 3. Accordingly, the development plan of the periphery-controlled area was amended and a new plan was made showing the location of the colony in the urbanisable zone of the periphery-controlled area (copy appended as R4). Hence the Writ petition is devoid of any merit. 3. The petitioner contended that the grant of Licence to Respondent No. 11 is in teeth of the provisions of the Act had, thus, be quashed; that the Respondents had not disclosed as to why the show cause notice issued earlier to Respondent No. 11 was withdrawn by them; and that the decision of the Haryana Government not to pursue with the construction of Ghaggar Dam is contrary to the provisions of the Act and against the plan of the town of Chandigarh. 4. Mr. Surya Kant, learned Advocate General-Haryana, appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 7 to 10, contended hat the argument of the petitioner is based on misreading of the provisions of the Act, the saving clause of the Act recognises the power of the Government or any other authority to acquire land or to impose restrictions upon the land use besides development of land comprised in the controlled area the decision of the Government to abandon the construction of Ghaggar Dam was taken in the best interest of the State of Haryana for the reasons disclosed in the affidavit, and if at all there is any dispute in this regard, it being an inter-State dispute, cannot be raised before this Court in view of the express bar stated in Article 131 of the Constitution of India, and thus, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 5. In reply, Dr. B. Singh contended that there is merit in his submissions and that the validity of the amendments in the Act have been challenged by him through a separate Writ Petition. 6. We are impressed by the arguments of Dr. B. Singh and find merit in the arguments of the learned Advocate General, Haryana. 7. Section 2(3) of the Act defines "Director". It means the Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana and includes any person for the time being appointed by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to perform all or any functions of the Director under the Act. 7. Section 2(3) of the Act defines "Director". It means the Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana and includes any person for the time being appointed by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to perform all or any functions of the Director under the Act. Factual averments made in the counter affidavit in regard to the term of the Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana has not been disputed before us. What the petitioner conveyed to us was that permission of the Deputy Commissioner is required under Section 6 of the Act and the Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana, lacked authority to grant such permission. We do not agree with him. We hold that he had full jurisdiction to grant permission granted by him. The words "impose restrictions upon the use and development of land comprised in the controlled area" occurring in the saving clause (Section 10 of the Act), in our view, embraces in itself the power of the development of the land comprised in the controlled area. 8. We also hold that in view of Article 131 of the Constitution of India, the dispute in relation to the closure of the Ghaggar Dam by the Haryana Government, if at all will be between the Government of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh and thus cannot be adjudicated by the High Court. 9. For the reasons afore-mentioned, we dismiss this writ petition, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, without making any order as to costs. 10. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned Advocate General within two weeks.