JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.:- The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.1991 granted by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Faridabad in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellants to claim development charges and composite fee in pursuance of notice dated 23.03.1986. Such judgment and decree was affirmed in the first appeal on 31.10.1992. Still aggrieved, the defendants are in second appeal. 2. The plaintiff-respondents are the purchasers of plots from M/s Rubber Reclaim Company of India Private Limited in the colony called ‘Rishi Nagar Colony’ contiguous to the Old Town of Ballabgarh in District Faridabad. It is pleaded by the plaintiffs that draft development plan was published on 05.06.1965 followed by final development plan dated 10.01.1966 under Section 5 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’). The land which has been purchased by the plaintiffs is part of the Controlled Area in terms of the aforesaid notification and reserved for residential purposes. The vendor of the plaintiffs have purchased the land for establishing their factory, but since the land was forming part of residential zone contiguous to Ballabgarh Town, the same was sold to different purchasers including the plaintiffs by developing a residential colony called ‘Rishi Nagar Colony’ after final publication of the development plans. 3. At this stage, it may be noticed that as per the then existing Section 6 of the Act, there was absolute prohibition to erect or re-erect any building except in accordance with the plan and the restrictions and conditions referred to in Section 5 and with the previous permission of the Director. The vendor of the Plaintiffs or the plaintiffs has never sought any permission under the Act for erection or re-erection of the building. On the other hand, under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short ‘the Municipal Act’), which was then applicable in the State of Haryana, the State Government declared the land, subject of purchase by the plaintiffs, as ‘unbuilt area’ vide order of the President of India dated 07.02.1968. Such ‘unbuilt area’ is defined in Section 3 sub-Section (18)(b) of the Municipal Act, as an area within the municipal limits declared to be such at a special meeting of the committee by a resolution confirmed by the State Government and notified as such by the State Government. Such ‘unbuilt area’ is defined in Section 3 sub-Section (18)(b) of the Municipal Act, as an area within the municipal limits declared to be such at a special meeting of the committee by a resolution confirmed by the State Government and notified as such by the State Government. Vide order dated 26.07.1968, the land of Rishi Nagar Colony was excluded from the earlier notification of unbuilt area. The said notification reads as under: “The Governor of Haryana is pleased to order that the constructions already made on the land and sites lying vacant belonging to M/s Rubber Reclaim Company of India Private Ltd. in area NO.1 of the Municipality Ballabgarh declared as unbuilt area vide order of the President of India dated the 7th February, 1968 shall be excluded from the purview of the said order dated 07.02.1968.” 4. The Municipal Committee, Ballabgarh, consequent to the aforesaid decision of the State Government, sanctioned the building plan submitted by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs constructed the buildings and also started paying house-tax. 5. The State Legislature enacted Faridabad Complex (Development & Regulation) Act, 1971 (for short ‘Faridabad Complex Act’), for regulated development of Municipalities, Revenue Estates and special areas as specified in Schedule I of the said Act. Municipal Committee, Ballabgarh is one of the institutions, which came to be governed by the aforesaid Act. Section 2 (f) of the Faridabad Complex Act defines ‘controlled area’ to mean an area declared under Section 29 of this Act. The provisions of Section 29 are more or less same as that of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. 6. Section 29 of the Faridabad Complex Act provides for declaration of whole or any part of the area within the Faridabad Complex including an area within a distance of 8 kilometres on the outer sides notwithstanding any law for the time being in force. Therefore, under Section 29 of the Faridabad Complex Act, the Faridabad Complex Administration has got jurisdiction to declare an area to be controlled area within the parameters specified under Section 29. However, it does not nullify declaration of controlled area under the Act. 7. The plaintiffs claim that Faridabad Complex Administration has succeeded the Municipal Committee, Ballabgarh. Therefore, Rishi Nagar Colony stands regularized with the enforcement of Faridabad Complex Act as successor of the Municipality. However, it does not nullify declaration of controlled area under the Act. 7. The plaintiffs claim that Faridabad Complex Administration has succeeded the Municipal Committee, Ballabgarh. Therefore, Rishi Nagar Colony stands regularized with the enforcement of Faridabad Complex Act as successor of the Municipality. The assertion of the plaintiffs is that the communication of the State in respect of regularization of the colonies such as Chawla Colony cannot be extended to Rishi Nagar Colony, which is authorized and regularized colony. It is on the basis of the aforesaid letter, the defendant-appellants have claimed development charges from the owners of the houses situated in Rishi Nagar Colony. It is, in these circumstances, the plaintiffs sought that the claim of the defendantappellants to claim development charges and composite fee is illegal and unwarranted. 8. In the written statement, it is inter alia asserted that sanction of building plans by Municipal Committee, Ballabgarh does not confer any right on the residents of the said Colony not to pay development charges. It is asserted that the plaintiffs and other residents of the said colony are liable and cannot evade their liabilities of the payment of the development charges under the garb of the present suit. It is also asserted that number of colonies has come up all around Ballabgarh Town, but no colony can be regularized without paying development charges and house tax, which are situated within the limits of Faridabad Complex Administration. 9. During evidence, the plaintiffs examined only Badan Singh – one of the plaintiffs as PW-1 apart from tendering documents inclusive of the orders of the Municipal Committee sanctioning building plans, the receipts regarding payment of house tax and notices issued by the defendants for claiming development charges as Exs.P-13 to P-19, whereas Ex.P27 is one of the sale deeds dated 12.10.1966 executed in pursuance of an agreement with M/s Rubber Relcaim Company of India with Rishi Nagar Company, Delhi on 08.05.1966 in respect of carving out of plots and selling the same. 10. On the other hand, the defendant-appellants examined Prem Raj, Building Inspector and A.S.Pundlik, Deputy Town Planner as DW-1 and DW-2 respectively apart from producing documents including Ex.D-3, a communication from the State Government to the Chief Administrator, Faridabad Complex Administration dated 24.11.1975. Such communication is to regularize colonies such as Chawla and Rishi; Vikrampur and Sabun; Punjabi-Jawahar; Indira Gandhi and New Colony etc. Such communication is to regularize colonies such as Chawla and Rishi; Vikrampur and Sabun; Punjabi-Jawahar; Indira Gandhi and New Colony etc. Civic amenities in these colonies were directed to be provided on payment of development expenses to be shared equally by Faridabad Complex Administration and the plot holders. 11. Learned trial Court decreed the suit inter alia holding that the defendants produced a letter dated 24.11.1975 as Ex.D-3, whereas reference in the written statement is to the letter dated 24.11.1976, therefore, it is not understandable that as to on which letter the defendants are relying upon, when Ex.D-3 itself has not been legally proved on file. It is also held that the colony stands approved, the moment the site plans were sanctioned by the Municipal Committee. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be said to be residents of unapproved colony. The learned first Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs cannot be bound by the letter dated 24.11.1975 (Ex.D-3) for payment of development charges because they have raised construction much earlier and their building plans have already been sanctioned. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the residential colony namely Rishi Nagar Colony can be said to be an approved colony in the face of Sections 6 & 7 of the Act? 2. Whether the sanction of building plans by the Municipal Committee will amount to permission to raise construction in terms of Sections 6 & 7 of the Act? 3. Whether the plaintiff-respondents are liable to pay development charges and composite fee for violating the provisions of Sections 6 & 7 of the Act? 13. Before dealing with the respective contentions raised by the parties, relevant Sections of the Punjab Scheduled Roads & Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 read as under: “2. 3. Whether the plaintiff-respondents are liable to pay development charges and composite fee for violating the provisions of Sections 6 & 7 of the Act? 13. Before dealing with the respective contentions raised by the parties, relevant Sections of the Punjab Scheduled Roads & Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 read as under: “2. Definitions – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires – (6) “Director” means the Director of Town and Country Planning, Haryana and includes any person for the time being appointed by the Government by notification to exercise and perform all or any of the powers and functions of the Director under this Act and the rules made thereunder in respect of any scheduled road or controlled area; xx xx xx (12) “erect or re-erect any building” includes – (a) any material alteration or enlargement of any building; (b) the conversion by structural alteration into a place for human habitation of any building not originally constructed for human habitation; (c) the conversion into more than one place for human habitation of a building originally constructed as one such place; (d) the conversion of two or more places of human habitation into a greater number of such places; (e) such alterations of a building as affect an alteration of its drainage or sanitary arrangements, or materially affect its security; (f) the addition of any rooms, building, outhouses, or other structures to any building, and (g) the constructions in a wall adjoining any street or land not belonging to the owner of the wall, of a door opening on to such street or land. xxx xxx xxx 6. Erection or re-erection of buildings etc. in controlled areas – Except as provided hereinafter, no person shall erect or re-erect any building or make or extend any excavation of lay out any means of access to a road in a controlled area save in accordance with the plan and the restrictions and conditions referred to in Section 5 and with the previous permission of the Director; Provided that no such permission shall be necessary for erection or re-erection of any building if such building is used or is to be used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient to agriculture. 7. 7. Prohibition on use of land in controlled areas – (1) No land within the controlled area shall, except with the permission of the Director, be used for purposes other than those for which it was used on the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 and no land within such controlled area shall be used for the purposes of a charcoal-kiln, pottery kiln, lime-kiln, brick-kiln, or brick field or for quarrying stone, bajri, surkhi, kankar or for other similar extractive or ancillary operation except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence from the Director on payment of such fees and under such conditions as may be prescribed. (2) The renewal of such licences may be made annually on payment of such fees as may be prescribed.” 14. It is pleaded case of the plaintiff-respondents themselves that there is a final development plan published on 10.01.1966 under Section 5 of the Act. Once the final development plan stands published, Section 6 of the Act prohibits erection or re-erection of the building without the permission of the ‘Director’, as defined under Section 2 (6) of the said Act. Whereas Section 7 of the Act prohibits use of building for any other purpose than those for which it was used on the date of publication of the notification. Thus, no construction could be raised in an area covered by the notification under Section 5 of the Act in view of the specific provisions of Sections 6 & 7 of the Act, as reproduced above. 15. Neither it is the case of the plaintiff-respondents nor any document has been produced on record nor there is even an allegation that they have ever sought permission from the ‘Director’ under the aforesaid Act to erect or re-erect building or to use the land for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was being used under the Act. In terms of Section 4 of the Act, the controlled area could be declared in respect of an area adjacent to or within a distance of 8 kilometers on the outer sides of the boundary of any town. The area in question as per the facts pleaded in the plaint itself, is just outside the then Ballabgarh town. Thus the Rishi Nagar Colony is an unapproved colony raised in violation of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The area in question as per the facts pleaded in the plaint itself, is just outside the then Ballabgarh town. Thus the Rishi Nagar Colony is an unapproved colony raised in violation of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. 16. The entire claim of the plaintiffs is based upon sanction of the building plans by the Municipal Committee and the fact that the land has been excluded from unbuilt area vide notification dated 26.07.1968, as reproduced above. It is pleaded case of the plaintiffs themselves that the land in question was contiguous to the old Ballabgarh Town, which was declared to be controlled area. It, thus, transpires that the land may be within municipal limits, but in view of Section 4(a) of the Act, the land was declared as controlled area as per the provisions in existence in the year 1966. 17. The sanctioning of the building plans by the Municipal Committee cannot be treated as a permission to erect or re-erect and to use the land for some other purposes under the Act. The sanction of the building plans cannot be deemed to be a permission of a Director under the Act. The permission to raise construction of a building within the municipal limits satisfies the requirement of Section 189 of the Municipal Act. Since the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 is a later and special legislation, therefore, the building plans sanctioned under the Municipal Act cannot be deemed to be permission under the Act. The provisions of the Act have to be complied with before the land can be put to other use than what it was being used on the date of declaration of the controlled area. 18. Though in the written statement, the defendants have referred to a communication dated 24.11.1976, but it appears that such date is an inadvertent typing mistake. All other references tallies with the document produced except that the correct date is 24.11.1975. For such inadvertent mistake, it cannot be said that document Ex.D-3 is not a legal document and cannot be read into evidence. Since Rishi Nagar Colony has come up without any permission of the Director under the Act, it was an illegal act liable to be proceeded in terms of penal provision of the Act. For such inadvertent mistake, it cannot be said that document Ex.D-3 is not a legal document and cannot be read into evidence. Since Rishi Nagar Colony has come up without any permission of the Director under the Act, it was an illegal act liable to be proceeded in terms of penal provision of the Act. Instead of invoking penal provisions, the State Government decided to regularize construction of the said colony on payment of development charges and composite fee. The relevant extract from the said communication (Ex.D-3), when translated, reads as under: “2. The Government after reconsidering the report of the Committee constituted to look into the issue of regularization of unauthorized colonies situated in Farbidabad Complex has decided that to regularize the colonies namely Chawla and Rishi; Vikrampuri and Sabun; Punjab-Jawahar; Indra Gandhi and New Colony is in public interest and these colonies are ordered to be regularized with following conditions: i. In these colonies expenses incurred on development works in respect of provision of civic amenities shall be shared in the ratio of 50:50 between Faridabad Complex Administration and the plot holders, meaning thereby that 50% amount to be charged from the plot holders has been/had to be worked out as plot holders’ cost by the Public Health Department; xx xx xx” 19. In view of the said decision, the plaintiffs have the option of either facing the penal proceeding or to pay development charges and composite fee. Since the State has claimed composite charges, the plaintiffs or such other similarly situated persons are bound to pay the same, else they are liable to be proceeded for penal proceedings. 20. In view of the above, I find that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below suffer from patent illegality or irregularity. Consequently, the same are set aside and the suit is dismissed with no order as to costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------