Holding

Section 4(2) is not mandatory; a Gazette notification under Section 4(1) suffices to create a controlled area, and delayed newspaper publication does not invalidate the declaration.

Summary

The appellant purchased agricultural land near the Grand Trunk Road in 1986 and erected a dhaba without obtaining permission under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. The land lay in a "controlled area" declared by a Gazette notification under Section 4(1) on 21‑12‑1971, but the statutory requirement to publish the declaration in two non‑English newspapers under Section 4(2) was fulfilled only in 1991. The appellant argued that the failure to publish as required rendered the declaration inchoate and the area not a controlled area, so his construction could not be challenged. The Tribunal and the Punjab‑Haryana High Court upheld the notice ordering demolition, finding violations of Sections 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that Section 4(2) is not mandatory; the Gazette notification alone makes the area a controlled area, and delayed newspaper publication does not nullify the declaration. Consequently, the appellant’s construction was illegal and he must remove it.

Issues considered

The requirement of Section 4(2) to publish the declaration in two non‑English newspapers is mandatory or directory.
Whether a declaration under Section 4(1) becomes ineffective if the Section 4(2) publication is delayed or omitted.
Whether the appellant’s construction violates Sections 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the Development Act.
Whether proper notice was given to the appellant under the Act.

Legislation cited

General Clauses Act
Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963s. 12, s. 3, s. 4(1), s. 4(2), s. 5, s. 6, s. 7, s. 8
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964

Subjects

Town and Country PlanningControlled AreaUnauthorized ConstructionSection 4(2) MandatoryGazette NotificationPublic InterestLand Use RegulationRemoval Order

Judgment

RAJINDER SINGH A
v.
,~ -
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

DECEMBER 2, 2004

B
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. _MATHUR AND
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]

Town and Country Planning : '

Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of C
Unregulated Development Act, 1963-Sections 3 to 8-Action against
purchaser for putting up construction against the terms of the Act in
controlled area-Order of removal of unauthorised construction by the
Authority-Plea that on account of failure to publish declaration in two
newspapers under section 4(2), notification of declaration issued under D
section 4(1) notifying area as controlled area inchoate and as such
construction in the so called controlled area could not be objected to-
Held: Requirement of section 4(2) is not mandatory-Failure to publish
in two newspapers would not render the notification of declaration inchoate
and area does not become controlled area-Delayed publication of the
contents ofdeclaration also would not nullify the declaration-Object sought E
to be achieved by the Act and its Scheme is t<? be seen.:._Purpos~ ofdeclaring
an area, a controlled area cannot be defeated by recourse to technical
pleas-Further, construction on agricultural land without permission is
transgression of section 7(1)-Furthermore, proper notice was given to the
owners to demolish unauthorised construction-Thus, direction for removal F
of unauthorised construction justified and rightly upheld by Tribunal and
High Court hence, calls for no interference-Constitution of India, 1950
Artie/~ 136.

A declaration was notified in the Official Gazette under Section
4(1) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction G
of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 specifying the controlled area on
21.12.1971. Publication of the declaration as contemplated in section
4(2) of the Act in two newspapers printed in a language other than
English was made 20 years later. Meanwhile in 1986 appellant purchased
an agricultural land and without permission put the land to a different H
613

'-
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A use by constructing a Dhabha. District Town Planner issued notice to
the appellant on the ground that he bad violated the provisions of the
Act and as such should stop further construction and restore the land
to its original condition. Appellant contended that the provisions of the
Act were not violated since the Dhabha was constructed outside 30
B meters from the road reserve and that the area had not been declared
as controlled area under the Act on accou.~t of non publication of the
Development Plan of controlled area till that date, in the official Gazette.
Original Authority holding that the provisions of the Act had been
violated called upon the appellant to remove unauthorized construction
and restore the land to its original cond.ition. Both the Tribunal and the
c High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal
and the writ petition along with the connecting appeals and the writ
petitions respectively. Hence the present appeals.

Appellant contended that the declaration notified in an Official
D Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Act on 21.12.1971 was inchoate and
did not come into force in view of the failure of the government to have
it published in at least two newspapers printed other than in English,
as mandated by section 4(2) of the Act and therefore, the area had not
become a 'controlled area' within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Act;
that once there was no proper declaration of the area as a controlled
E area, section 6 or 7 of the Act were not violated and as such the
construction put up by the appellant could not be objected to; that the
publication in two language newspapers about 20 years after the
publication of the declaration in the Official Gazette under section 4(1)
of the Act would nullify the declaration; and that there was no proper
F service of notice to the purchasers.

Respondent-State contended that on a declaration under section
4(1) of the Act being published in the Official Gazette followed by the
issua.nce of a draft plan in terms of section 5(1), the area becomes a
controlled area and any construction therein thereafter could only be
G in terms 9f the Act and after obtaining prior permission from the
Director and any change in use of the land should also be only after
seeking and obtaining permission from the Director; that the delay in
making the publication in the newspapers cannot have the effect of
nullifying the declaration already issued in the Official Gazette; that
H section 4(2) of the Act is not mandatory; and that the notices were issued
RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE 615

to some of the appellants under certificate of posting and to some others A
by registered post and that in all cases the notices were affixed.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1.1. On the Scheme of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and B
Controlled Areas Restriction of unregulated Development Act, 1963 an
~rea becomes a controlled area by the Government declaring it to be
so by a Notification under section 4(1) of the Act. Section 4(2) provides
that the Government shall also cause the contents of the declaration
made under Section 4(1) to be published in at least two newspapers
printed in a language other than English. Also both section 5(1) and 7(1) C
speak only of the publication of the notification under section 4(1) and
not the publication of the contents of the declaration in terms of section
4(2). The requirement of section 4(2) was not made mandatory by the
legislature. No doubt the legislature wanted the people within the
proposed controlled area to know of the declaration issued by the D
Government and that was sought to be achieved by directing that the
said declaration also be published in two language newspapers other
than in English. But from this it cannot be inferred that without such
publication of the contents in two newspapers the declaration already
issued in terms of section 4(1) in the Official Gazette remains still born
or inchoate or of no consequence. The object and the scheme of the Act E
in defining a controlled area as indicated by section 4(1) itself cannot
be ignored. [625-C-D; 626-F-G-H; 627-A-B)

Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and Another v. Raja Ram
Jaiswal, [1985) 3 sec 1 and Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills F
(P) Ltd. and Ors., [2003) 2 SCC lll, distinguished.

1.2. On the scheme of the Act it appears that the notification of a
declaration under section 4(1) of the Act in the Official Gazette which
is the normal mode of publishing orders of Government for the knowledge
of the public in terms of the General Clauses Act, would bring about G
the consequences contemplated by the Development Act. In this case and
in the connected cases, the contents of the declaration notified under
section 4(1) of the Act were also subsequently published in two newspapers
other than in English and in that situation it is held that the procedural
requirement has also been satisfied but only after a lapse of time which H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A would not nullify the declaration. Also in view of the conclusion that
section 4(2) was not mandatory, failure to publish in two newspapers
would not render the original notification of the declaration issued ·.
under section 4(1) nonest, and it cannot be said that the area had not
been notified or declared as a controlled area within the meaning of the
B Act. [628-A-B-C-D]

1.3. It is clear from the terms of the Act that as regards the
scheduled roads, the Act becomes operative from the date of the Act and
any construction in violation of section 3(1) of the Act after the coming
into force of the Act has to be found to be illegal. On the scheme of the
C Act and in the light of the object sought to be. achieved by the Act, the
declaration of a controlled area becomes effective from the date of the
notification of the declaration in terms of Section 4(1) of the Development
Act even though the contents of that declaration are published _in two
newspapers other than in English only at a later point of time. In all
D these cases the constructions had been put up in controlled areas and
that to without permission of the Director. Also in almost all the cases,
the construction has also been put up on agricultural land without
permission in terms of the Act. Therefore, there is open transgression
of the relevant provisions of f:he Act and the authorities were fully
justified in directing removal of constructions which fell within 30
E meters of a scheduled road or 100 meters of a bypass to a scheduled
road. [629-D-E-F-G-H)

1.4. The notices indicate that they were issued when unauthorized
constructions were commenced and they called upon the owners to stop
F further constructions. Having come to know of the notices, the appellants
had filed objections. Further on the basis of a direction issued by the
High Court, various appellants. were given notices against which the
appellants filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal had dealt with the.
appeals and the contentions raised and the Director dealt with the
G objections raised by the appellants. Therefore, it cannot be said that
there was violation of principle of natural justice or the failure to give
proper notice. [629-A-B-C-D)

1.5. The Act seeks to achieve the object ofleaving clear areas adjacent
to scheduled roads intended for swift and safe moving of vehicular traffic.
H Any attempt to defeat that object by putting constructions of dhabas,
RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE 017

residential or industrial buildings against the terms of the Development A
Act, would tend to affect public safety and endanger lives and property
and courts must discourage such attempts. Lethargy or studied
indifference of officials to act promptly cannot be made use of to thwart
public interest. Therefore, it is not just or proper for courts to entertain
pleas of technical nature which would tend to defeat the object of the Act B
and as such no case is made out for interference and the Tribunal and the
High Court were fully justified in not interfering with the action initiated
by the authorities concerned for removal of unauthorized constructions
in violation of Section 3(1) of the Act. [629-H; 630-A-B-C]

1.6. Position with regard to the constructions in controlled areas C
is the same. The purpose of declaring an area, a controlled area, cannot
be allowed to be defeated by recourse to technical pleas, especially by
those who have violated the terms of the statute. Viewed from the angle
of public interest, when there is notification of the declaration in the
Gazette in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act, the same must be given effect D
to and any user of land for purposes other than the original purpose for
which it was used, should be discouraged and the attempt to put up
constructions which would lead to haphazard development of the
controlled area should be prevented and these objects should not be lost
sight of by courts which are concerned with public interest, which
ultimately has to prevail over private interest. Therefore, the decision E
of the High Court does not call for interference and the appellants are
directed. to remove the offending constructions. [630-D-E-F-G)

2. With regard to C.A. Nos. 2685, 2687, 2692, 2696, 2686, 2693,
2695, 2610, 2679, 2682,2694, 2690, 2678, 2683, 2689, 2699, 2680, 2111 F
and 2712 of 2004, appellants had put up construction in violation of the
statute and without the requisite permissions under the Act and therefore,
Original Authority. Appellate Tribunal and High Court rightly dismissed
their challenge to the action taken under the Act and are directed to
remove the offenjing constructions within two months from the date of
the judgment. (631-A-B, D-E-F) G
3. With regard to C.A. No. 2671, 2681, 2684, 2688 and 2698 of2004,
appellants obtained leases of pieces ofland from Gram Panchayat in the
year 1986 in violation of Section 5 of the Punjab Village Common Land
(Regulation) Act, 1961 and Rule 3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A (Regulation) Rules, 1964 and as such the said leases does not confer any
right on the appellants and no right in them to put up any construction
that can be recognized. In view of the main judgement, there is no merit
in these appeals and as such are dismissed and the appellants are
directed to remove the offending constructions within two months from
B the date of the judgment. (631-G-H; 632-A-B)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2671 of ~
2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.2003 of the Punjab and
C Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4653 of 2003.

WITH
.
C.A. Nos. 2684, 2682, 2696, 2686, 2681, 2695, 2670, 2688, 2679,
~I> 2698,2697,2693,2690,2678,2683,2689,2694,2699,2685,2680,2692,
2687, 2711 and 2712 of 2004.

Kailash Vasdev, Mahabir Singh, Rakesh Dahiya, Ms. Madhusmita
Bora, Nikhil Jain, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Ms. Sunita R. Singh, Sanjeev
Saroha, Rohtash Nagar, T. Mahipal Khawairakpam Nobin Singh, Manu
E Mridul, Neeraj Sharma, Surya Kant, Sanjeev Sachdeva, Shiv Kumar Sinha,
Harkesh Manuja, K.G. Bhagat, Vineet Bhagat, Kamal Baid, Manohar Singh
Bakshi, Ms. Sangeeta Gaur, Debasis Misra, Neeraj Kumar Jain, Aditya
Kumar Chaudhary and Bharat Singh for Ms. Kavita Wadia for the appearing
parties.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. : CIVIL APPEAL N0.2697 OF
2004.

G The petitioner in Civil Writ Peti_tion No.2294 of 2003 on the file of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is the appellant in this Appeal. The
Appeal challenges the decision of the High Court dismissing the writ petition.
Civil Writ Petition No.2294 of2003 was heard along with a number ofother
writ petitions filed by persons similarly situated and was treated as the main
H case. Before the High Court, it was the common case of the parties in the
RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE [P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 619

various writ petitions that the facts and the position in law in all the cases A
were typical of the facts and law arising in Civil Writ Petition (CWP)
No.2294 of 2003 and that the decision in C. W.P. No.2294 of 2003 will
govern all the cases and hence may be treated as the main case. The High
Court acceded to this request and answered the main points in CWP No.2294
of2003. Finding against the case of the writ petitioner, the writ petition was B
dismissed. Applying the decision, the other writ petitions were also dismissed.
Appeals were filed against those decisions also. The appeals were heard
together. The present appeal arising from the main judgment was treated as
the main appeal. The questions arising for decision being common, the
decision in this appeal would govern the various cases heard along with it,
in addition to the peculiar facts situation prevailing in some of them. C

2. The appellant herein purchased an extent of land comprising Killa
No.172/9/1 (2-17), I Oil ( 1-8) in the revenue estate of village Murtha!, Tehsil
Sonepat adjoining the Grand Trunk Road (G.T. Road) as per sale deed dated
30. l O. l 986. The land was agricultural land. The appellant claimed that he D
constructed what he calls a 'Dhaba' in the land in the same year. He has
not given the details regarding the construction or the time of construction.
He did not seek any permission for putting the land to a use different from
agriculture, or for putting up the construction. On 8.7.2002, the District
Town Planner, Sonepat, exercising the powers of the Director, Town and
Country Planning, Haryana, issued a notice to the appellant under Section E
12(2) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of
Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Development Act') calling upon the appellant to stop further construction
and to appear in his office and to show-cause why he should not be ordered
to restore the land to its original state, which was in the controlled area of F
Sonepat in terms of the Development Act. The said notice brought to the
notice of the appellant that he was putting up the construction in a controlled
area under the Development Act; that he had laid out an access to the Grant
Trunk Road (G.T. Road) in contravention of Section 6 of the Development
Act; that he had also contravened Sections 8 and I 0 of the Development Act;
and that he had used the land in contravention of Section 7(1) of the G
Development Act. The notice called upon the appellant to stop further

-
construction and to remove the unauthorized construction and restore the
\and to its original condition. The appellant filed a reply dated 16. 7.2002,
to the show-cause notice claiming that the 'Dhaba' had been constructed
outside 30 meters from the road reserve and even if a part of it fell within H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 30 meters, the dispute was pending before the tribunal created under the
Development Act. His substantive defence was that there was no notice of
publication of the Development plan of controlled area till that date, in the
official gazette, and he could not be found guilty of violation of Sections
4 and 5 of the Development Act. The area had not been declared as controlled
area under the Development Act. The appellant was ready and willing to
B
pay the conversion charges, if any, under Section 7 of the Development Act.
He also raised a contention that he was being treated with discrimination,
since there were other constructions belonging to the government and others
in the locality, presumably violating the provisions of the Development Act
and no steps were taken against those constructions. The authority, by order
C dated 23. 7 .2002, rejected the contentions of the appellant and found that the
provisions of the Development Act had ·been violated by the appellant. The
Director, Town and Country Planner Department, therefore, called upon the
appellant to remove his unauthorized construction and restore the land to
its original condition.
D
3. The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal constituted under
the Development Act, 1963. The appeal was heard along with various other
appeals. The tribunal, on a consideration of the relevant aspects, came to
the conclusion that the Director, Town and Country Planning Department
was justified in passing the order since there had been a clear violation of
E the provisions of the Development Act, 1963 by the appellant and others.
Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant and the connected appeals were
dismissed. The appellant and the others challenged the orders of the Tribunal
before the High Court in various writ petitions. The case of the appellant,
as indicated earlier, was treated as the main writ petition and the High Court,
F on a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Develupment Act, 1963 ""'
in the light of the steps taken under the Development Act, 1963 and the facts
obtaining in the case, and the arguments raised, dismissed the writ petition
affirming. the order of the tribunal. It also dismissed the connectP.d writ
petitions filed by others. This appeal, challenges the main decision rendered
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the connected appeals
G challenge the decisions in the respective writ petitions filed by the appellants
therein.

4. The High Court dealt with in detail the contentions raised on behalf
of the petitioners. It referred to the relevant provisions of the Act and the •
H objects sought to be achieved by the Act. It also considered the scope of
RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE [P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 621

Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 12 of the Act in the light of the other relevant A
provisions and came to the conclusion that on the coming into force of the
Act on 30.11.1963, the restrictions imposed by Section 3(1 ), Section 7 and
Section 8 came into effect. It, therefore, held that the violation of those
provisions could be dealt with by the Authority under the Act. It noticed
the fact that in the case on hand the final development plan of the controlled B
area in question in terms of Section 5 of the Act was finalized and published
in the Official Gazette on 26.5.1973. On the argument based on the mandatory
nature of the requirement under Section 4(2) of the Act, the High Court held
.... that there was compliance with the requirement and there was no time limit
as such fixed for compliance with the said requirement. On facts, it also
found that the purchases and constructions were after the publications in the C
newspapers themselves. Finding that there was no answer to the charges of
violation of Section 3(1) of the Act, Section 7(1) of the Act and Section 8
of the Act, the High Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to any
relief from .hat Court and the Tribunal and the Original Authority were fully
justified it directing removal of unauthorized constructions put up in D
agricultural lands without permission, without obtaining an approved plan
and in violation of Section 3 of the Development Act. The pleas that there
was violation of natural justice and that there was procedural defect in the
disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal, were also overrultid. Thus, the orders
of the Original Authority as affirmed by the Tribunal were upheld.
E
5. Though various contentions were raised in the petition for special
leave to appeal in this Court, the main argument that was pressed before us
was that the requirement of Section 4(2) was mandatory and so long as that
mandate had not b.een complied with, the notification of the declaration
under Section 4(1) of the Act notifying the areas as controlled areas remained F
incohate in spite of it being published in the Gazette and that any construction
made in a so called controlled area could not be objected to, if the construction
was prior to the date of publication of the notification in two newspapers
other than in English language. There was no argument based on alleged
violation of natural justice put forward before the High Court but argument
was raised that there was no proper service of notice on the petitioners and G:
as contemplated by the Act. No argument was made that the final development
plan had not been finalized, a contention that was raised before the High
' Court. It was not disputed that if there was a violation of Section 3 of the·
Act, action could be taken, whether the area was a controlled area or not.
The'questions raised are dealt with hereunder. H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP:6 S.C.R.

A 6. The Development Act, 1963 came into force on 30.11.1963. It was
an Act to prevent haphazard, sub-standard development along scheduled
roads and in controlled areas in the State of Punjab. Subsequently, by the
Haryana Adaptation of Laws Order 196~, the Act was adapted by the State
of Haryana and extended to the whole of that State. Section 2(1) of the
.B Development Act, 1963 defined 'agriculture'. A Bypass was defined by
Section 2(3) of the Act. Section 2(5) of the Act defined a controlled area
as meaning an area declared under Section 4 of the Act to be a controlled
area. Section 2(9) of the Act defined the expression 'road reservation' in
relation to a scheduled road and Section 2(10) defined a 'scheduled road' .
-

as meaning a road specified in the schedule to the Act and as including a
C bypass. The other definitions are not being referred to for the moment, since
they are not relevant for our purpose. Section 3 enacted a prohibition against
erection.or re-erection of a building along side scheduled roads. There was
no dispute before us that the G.T. Road was a scheduled road and that any
violation of Section 3(1) of The Development Act, 1963 could be dealt with
D under the Act and the constructions got removed. Section 3(1) prohibits a
person from erecting or re-erecting any building or laying out any means
of access to a road within l 00 meters of either side of the road reservation
of a bypass or within 30 meters on either side of the road reservation or any
scheduled road, not being a bypass. Certain exceptions are provided with
which we are not concerned except to notice that an exemption attempted
E to be provided in respect of public utility buildings and community assets
was declared unconstitutional by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Section 4 of the Act, by sub-section (l ), gave power to the government to
declare by a notification, the whole or any part of any area adjacent to and
within a distance of 8 kilometers on the outer side of the boundary of any
F town; or two kilometers on the outer side of the boundary of any industrial
or housing estate, public institution or an ancient and historical monument,
as a controlled area for the purposes of The Development Act, 1963. Sub-
section (2) provided that the government shall also cause the contents of the
declaration made under sub-section (l) to be published in at least two
newspapers printed in a language other than English. There is no dispute
G that in the case on hand, though the declaration was notified in the Official
Gazette on 21.12.1971, the same was published in newspapers only in the
year 1991, on 26.3.1991 in an English daily The Tribune, on 25.3.1991 in

H
the Hindi daily Jan Sandesh and on 9.4.1991 in the daily Dainik Amar
Rajnitik. Section 5 contemplates the publication of plans in the prescribed
manner showing the controlled area and therein the nature ofrestrictions and
-
/
RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE [P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 623

conditions proposed to be made applicable to the controlled area and providing A
for submission of plans to the government. Sub-section (2) provides for
what the plan should indicate. Under sub-section (3), the government has
the power either to approve the plan with or without modification or reject
the plan with a direction to the Director to prepare a fresh plan according
to its directions. Under sub-section (4), the government was to cause to be B
published by a notification the plans approved by it under Section 5(3) of
the Development Act. Under sub-section (5), the parties had the right to
object to the proposals. The Director was to give an opportunity of being
heard to such objectors under sub-section (6) and after doing so, under sub-
section (7), make recommendations to the government and the government
had to decide as to the final plans showing the controlled area. The same C
had to be published in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as may
be prescribed. Sub section (8) enabled a provision to be made by Rules with
respect to the form and_ c_ontents of the plans and with respect to the
procedure to .be followed and any other matter in connection with the
· preparaiio"ii: submission and approval of the plans. The government, under D
sub-section (9), had also the power to direct the Director to furnish any other
information that the government may want for the purpose of approving the
plans submitted to it under Section 5 of the Development Act. Section 6
prevented a person from erecting or re-erecting any building or laying out
an access to a road save in accordance with the plans and restrictions and
conditions referred to in Section 5 of the Development Act and with the E
previous permission of the Director. The proviso enabled a construction to
be made without permission if it was to be used for agricultural purposes.
Section 7 prohibits the use of land in controlled areas. No land within the
controlled area could 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 F
Section 4 of the Development Act except with the permission of the Director
and on payment of the conversion charges as may be prescribed. Section
7 A confers a power on the government to relax in public interest, any of
the restrictions or conditions, insofar as they relate to land use prescribed
in the controlled area in exceptional circumstances. Section 8 provides for
filing of applications for permission and for grant or refusal thereof. Section G
>
9 confers a power of entry on the Director or a person authorized by him
in that behalf. Section 10 provides a right of appeal to a person who was
aggrieved by an order on an application filed under Section 8 of the Act.
Section 1OA of the Development Act confers a power of revision by the
government and Section lOB confers a power of review on the Director. H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A Section l l provides that the Director shall carry out such directions as may
be issued to him from time to time by the government for the efficient
administration of the Development Act. Section 12 provides for offences
and penalties and makes contraventions of the provisions of Sections 3, 6,
8 and IO and the user of land in contravention of Section 7(1) or Section
B 7 of the Development Act, punishable. Section 14 provides for composition
of offences. Section l 6 provides for sanction of prosecution. Section 21 of
the Development Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court. Section 23
provides that nothing in the Development Act would affect the operation
of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, and the Punjab
Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1961. Sub-section (2) of
c Section 23 gives over-riding effect to the provisfons of the Development Act
and the Rules notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in
any other law. Section 25 of the Act confers the rule making power on the
government. For completion, it may be noted that the G.T. Road (from Delhi
to Amritsar and on the border with Pakistan) is the first item in the Schedule
D of Scheduled Roads within the purview of Section 3(1) of the Development
Act.

7. To recapitulate, though a declaration was notified in the Official
Gazette under Section 4( 1) of the Development Act specifying the controlled
area as early as on 21.12.1971; on 31. l 0.86 when the appellant purchased
E the plot of land in question, the publication had not been effected in the
newspapers as contemplated by Section 4(2) of the Act. Though there was
some controversy in pleadings whether the plan as contemplated by Section
5 of the Act had been published, at the time of hearing, there was no dispute
that a plan had been published as contemplated by Section 5 of the
F Development Act. But the publication of the declaration as contemplated
in Section 4(2) of the Development Act in two newspapers printed in a
language other than English, was made only in the months of March and
April 1991. In that context, it was the contention on behalf of the appellant
that the de~laration notified under Section 4(1) of the Development Act on
21.12.1971 in the Official Gazette was incohate and did not come into force
G in view of the failure of the government to have it published in at least two
newspapers printed other than in English, as mandated by Section 4(2) of
the Development Act. It was, therefore, contended that the area had not
become a 'controlled area' within the meaning of Section 4(1) of the
Development Act and consequently, no action could be taken against the
H appellant for putting up a construction against the terms of the Development
RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE [P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 625

Act in a controlled area. It was further submitted that once there was no A
proper declaration of the area as a controlled area, there could be no
violation of Section 6 or 7 of the Development Act and consequently, the
appellant or his construction, could not be visited with any consequence
under the Development Act. We may notice that the argument in the High
Court was that the delay in publishing the declaration in two newspapers B
was a colourable exercise of power.

- 8. On the scheme of the Development Act an area becomes a controlled
area by the government declaring it to be so by a notification t:nder Section
4( 1) of the Development Act. No doubt Section 4(2) of the Development
Act provides that the government shall also cause the conteQts of the c
declaration made under Section 4( 1) to be published in at least two newspapers
printed in a language other than English. What is argued on behalf of the
appellant is that Section 4(2) of the Development Act is mandatory and so
long as a declaration notified in an Official Gazette under Section 4(1) of
the Development Act, is not followed by the publication of the contents of D
that declaration in two language newspapers under Section 4(2) of the
Development Act, the declaration of the controlled area does not come into
force and consequently the area could not be deemed to be a controlled area.
It is also submitted as a corollary that publication in two language newspapers
about 20 years after the publication of the declaration in the Official Gazette
under Section 4(1) of the Development Act is of no avail since it was E
unreasonable to allow such long lapse of time between the notification and
the publication. This is met by counsel appearing for the State by submitting
that on a declaration under Section 4(1) of the Aet being published in the
Official Gazette followed by the issuance of a draft plan in terms of Section
5( 1) of the Development Act, the area becomes a controlled area and any F
construction therein thereafter could only be in terms of the Development
Act and after obtaining prior permission from the Director and any change
in use of the land should also be only after seeking and obtaining permission
from the Director. It is contended that the delay in making the publication
in the newspapers cannot have the effect of nullifying the declaration
'-
already issued in the Official Gazette which is normally the mode of G
publication of governmental orders and notifications and it is also the mode
prescribed by Section 4( 1) of the Development Act. It is also submitted that
Section 4(2) of the Development Act is not mandatory and though the
~"'
expression 'shall' is used therein, what the sub-section really provides is that
the government shall also cause the contents of the declaration to be H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A published in two newspapers other than English and this shows that the
requirement was not mandatory (emphasis supplied).

9. The High Court, dealing with this contention, after noticing the
conspectus of the Development Act, the purpose sought to be achieved by
B it and the earlier directions issued by that Court to implement the provision~
of the Development Act took the view that it was not possible to hold that
the delayed publication of the contents of the declaration under Section 4(2)
of the Development Act and the delayed finalization of the final development
plan under Section 5 of the Development Act would affect the declaration
under Section 4(1) of the Development Act. In fact, it may be noted that
c what was contended before the High Court was that the declaration under
Section 4(1) of the Development Act remained inchoate for want of
publication of its contents in two language newspapers and that the belated
publication in two language newspapers amounted to a colorable exercise
of power. Whatever it may be, the question is whether the fact that the
D. contents of the declaration notified under Section 4(1) of the Development
Act was published in two language newspapers only at a subsequent point
of time would justify our holding that the declaration notified under Section
4(1) of the Development Act never came into force at all and whether it
could be held that the area in question did not become a 'controlled area'
within the meaning of the Development Act. Actually, on the facts ofalmost
E all of these cases, the purchases, or at least the attempted constructions were
after the publications in Newspapers and in those cases, this argument may
not even be available to the appellants.

10. In addition to the indication available in Section 4(2) of the
F Development Act in view of the stipulation that the government shall also
cause the contents to be published in two newspapers, we find that both
Section 5( I) and 7(1) of the Development Act, speak only of the publication
of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Development Act and not the
publication of the contents of the declaration in terms of Section 4(2) of the
Development Act. This, in our view, indicates that the requirement of
G Sectio.n 4(2) of the Development Act was not made mandatory by the
legislature. No doubt the legislature wanted the people within the proposed
controlled area to know of the declaration issued by the government and that
was sought to be achieved by directing that the said declaration also be <.

published in two language newspapers other than in English. But from this
H it cannot be inferred that without such publication of the contents in two
RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE [P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 627

newspapers the declaration already issued in terms of Section 4( I) of the A
Development Act in the Official Gazette remains still born or inchoate or
of no consequence. In this context we cannot ignore the object sought to
-J be achieved by the Act and the scheme of the Act in defining a controlled
area as indicated by Section 4( I) itself.
B
11. It is argued on behalf of the appellant in the present appeal and
by counsel in support of the other appeals that at best the notification could
be treated as becoming effective only from the date of publication of the
contents of the declaration in two language newspapers and cases in which
the construction had been made after the notification of the declaration
under Section 4( I) of the Act and before the publication of its contents in C
I two newspapers should be held to be not violative of the provisions of the
Development Act. The decision in Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad
and Another v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, [1985] 3 SCC 1 was relied on to contend
that the requirement for giving public notice of the substance of the notified
declaration was mandatory, but it has to be noticed that the said decision D
related to the giving of public notice of the substance of the notification
under Section 4( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the scope of the
Land Acquisition Act is obviously different from the Development Act
which only seeks to control the user of the land and does not deprive the
owner of his rights over the land. Moreover, on the scheme of the Land
Acquisition Act, the publication of the contents in the locality has much E
relevance and it is not merely for conveying information to the members
of the public. It appears to us that the decisions based on the Land Acquisition
Act in that regard are clearly distinguishable, on the la~guage of Section 4(2)
of the Act, the object sought to be achieved and the nature of the prohibition
contained in the Development Act and the obligation imposed on the owner p
of the land by the Development Act. The argument to the effect that a right
cannot be taken away without following the procedure laid down, based on
the ratio in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. And
Others, (2003] 2 SCC 111, is also of no avail since that was also a decision
under the Land Acquisition Act depriving the owner of his right to property
altogether though, of course, subject to payment of compensation as provided G
in that Act. We should not be understood as saying that the procedure laid
down by the Act need not be followed. The procedure laid down has been
followed but only ~fter a lapse of time. In such a situation, especially
considering the object sought to be achieved by The Development Act and
the nature of the restrictions in public interest that are sought to be imposed H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A by the Act, it is not possible to uphold a contention that the belated adherence
to the procedure would nullify the very declaration duly notified in the
Official Gazette in terms of Section 4(1) of The Development Act. On the
scheme of The Development Act it appears to us that the notification of a
declaration under Section 4( I) of The Development Act in the Official
B Gazette which is the normal mode of publishing orders of government for
the knowledge of the public in terms of the General Clauses Act, would
bring about the consequences contemplated by The Development Act. In
this case and in the connected cases, the contents of the declaration notified
under Section 4( I) of The Development Act were also subsequently published
in two newspapers other than in English and in that situation we are inclined
C to hold that the procedural requirement has also been satisfied. Even apart
from that, in view of our conclusion that Section 4(2) of The Development
Act was not mandatory in the sense that the failure to publish in two
newspapers would render.the original notification of the declaration
.
issued
under Section 4(1) of The Development Act nonest, the argument that the
D area has not become a controlled area cannot be accepted. We, therefore,
overrule the contention that the area had not been notified or declared as
a controlled area within the meaning of The Development Act.

12. The appellant has no case that he had sought for permission to
convert the land which was agricultural land, into non-agricultural land in
E terms of Section 7(1) of The Development Act. There is, therefore, a clear
transgression of that provision. Similarly, that part of the construction that
falls within 30 meters of the G.T. Road or within 100 meters of a bypass
road or the laying of an access to the G.T. Road without prior permission
have 'to be held to be illegal in terms of the Development Act.
F
13. In that context it was contended that in some of the cases there was
no proper notice to the owners calling upon them to demolish the construction
allegedly put up by them unauthorizedly. It is seen from the records that
in some cases notices were sent by registered post and in some of the cases
G notices were sent under certificate of posting. The appellants disputed this
and pleaded that they have not received the notices. The respondents have
also pleaded that the notices were also affixed contemporaneously in the
premises in all the cases. In most of the cases, this fact was not disputed
but it was contended that the mode of service by affixture could be resorted
to only after the notices were sought to be served in person as prescribed
H by the Rules. In the context of these cases, we see no reason to disbelieve
RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE [P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 629

the stand of the respondents that notices were issued to some of the appellants A
under certificate of posting and to some others by registered post and that
in all cases the notices were affixed. The notices indicate that they were
issued when unauthorized constructions were commenced and they called
upon the owners to stop further constructions. We must also notice that
having come to know of the notices, the appellants had, in fact, filed
B
objections. In addition, it .is seen that on the basis of a direction issued by
the High Court, various appellants were given notices informing them of a
right of appeal to the tribunal constituted under The Development Act
against the orders of the Director and such appeals were filed by all the
appellants before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had dealt with those appeals
and the contentions they had raised. The Director had also dealt with the c
objections raised by the appellants. In this situation, nothing turns on the
arguments based on natural justice or the failure to give proper notice. The
High Court, in our view, has rightly overruled the contentions based on want
of notice or inadequacy of notice.
D
14. It is clear from the terms of the Dev7lopment Act that as regards
the scheduled roads, the Development Act becomes operative from the date
of the Act and any construction in violation of section 3(1) of the Development
Act after the coming into force of the Development Act has to be found to
be illegal. Therefore, the authorities were fully justified in directing removal
of constructions which fell within 30 meters of a scheduled road or 100 E
meters of a bypass to a scheduled road. We have already held that on the
scheme of the Development Act and in the light of the object sought to be
achieved by the Development Act, the declaration of a controlled area
becomes effective from the date of the notification of the declaration in
terms of Section 4(1) of the Development Act even though the contents of F
that declaration are published in two newspapers other than in English only
at a later point of time. In view of this, in all these cases the constructions
had been put up in controlled areas and that too without permission of the
Director. In almost all the cases, the construction has also been put up on
agricultural land which again could not be done without permission in terms
of the Development Act. It is, therefore, clear that there is open transgression G
of the relevant provisions of the Development Act and the authorities were
fully justified in directing the appellant and others to remove their
unauthorized constructions.

15. The Act seeks to achieve the object of leaving clear areas adjacent H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A to scheduled roads intended for swift and safe moving of vehicular traffic.
Any attempt to defeat that object by putting constructions of dhabas,
residential or industrial buildings against the terms of the Development Act,
would tend to affect public safety and endanger lives and property and
courts must discourage such attempts. Lethargy or studied indifference of
B officials to act promptly cannot be made use of to thwart public interest. This
has been indicated by the High Court in its earlier judgments. It is, therefore,
not just or proper for courts to entertain pleas of technical nature which
would tend to defeat the object of the Development Act. Viewed from that
context, we are satisfied that the appellant has not made out any case for
interference and the tribunal and the High Court were fully justified in not
c interfering with the action initiated by the authorities concerned for removal
ofunauthorized constructions in violation of Section 3(1) of the Development
Act.

16. Same is the position regarding constructions in controlled areas.
D The purpose of declaring an area, a controlled area, cannot be allowed to
be defeated by recourse to technical pleas, especially by those who have
violated the terms of the statute. It is seen that except in one or two cases,
the lands were purchased and constructions without permission were
attempted after the declaration was published in newspapers as envisaged
by Section 4(2) of the Act. In those cases, these pleas are not even available.
E Viewed from the angle of public interest, when there is notification of the
declaration in the Gazette in terms of Section 4(1) of the Development Act,
the same must be given effect to and any user of land for purposes other
than the original purpose for which it was used, should be discouraged and
the attempt to put up constructions which would lead to haphazard
F development of the controlled area should be prevented and these objects
should not be lost sight of by courts which are concerned with public
interest, which ultimately has to prevail over private interest. Thus, viewed
from any angle we are satisfied that the decision of the High Court does not
call for interference.

G We, therefore, affirm the decision of the High Court and dismiss this
appeal. The appellant is given time of two months from this date to remove
the offending construction. If the appellant fails to remove the same within
that time, Respondent Nos.I and 2 will get the construction removed and
file a compliance report in this regard. The interim order is vacated and the
H respondents are directed to implement the Act and the orders passed
RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE [P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 631

thereunder. A

C.A. No.2685, 2687, 2692, 2696, 2686, 2693, 2695, 2670,
2679, 2682, 2694 2690, 2678, 2683, 2689, 2699, 2680, 2711 and 2712 of
2004.
B
In almost all these cases the appellants purchased the lands wherein
they put up constructions, found to be unauthorized in terms of the Punjab
- ... Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction on Unregulated
Development Act, 1963, after the declaration under Section 4(1) of the Act
was notified in the Gazette and it was also published in two newspapers other
than in English language· as contemplated by Section 4(2) of the Act. The C
constructions put up without permission were also thereafter. It is, therefore,
not open to the aprellants to raise a contention that the declaration under
Section 4(1) of the Act was inchoate because it was not followed up by
publication of its contents in two newspapers other than in English. We have
even otherwise held in our Judgment in C.A. No.2697 of 2004, that the D
provision for publication under Section 4(2) of the Act in two newspapers
other than in English language was not mandatory. We have also held that
mere delay in publishing the declaration in two newspapers would not
invalidate the declaration of the area as controlled area. In these cases, the
appellants put up the constructions in violation of the statute and without
the requisite permissions under the Act. Therefore, the authority under the E
Act, the appellate tribunal and the High Court rightly dismissed their challenge
to the action taken under the Act.

We dismiss these appeals. The appellants are given time of two months
from this date to remove the offending constructions. If the appellants fail F
to remove them within that time, Respondent Nos. I and 2 will get the
constructions removed and file a compliance report in this regard.

Civil Appeal Nos. 2671, 2681, 2684, 2688 and 2698 of 2004.

In these appeals the appellants obtained leases of pieces of land from G
Kambopura Gram Panchayat in the year 1986 in violation of Section 5 of
the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 and Rule 3 of the
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. Since the leases
were against the terms of the said Act and the Rules, the said leases do not
confer any right on the appellants and no right in them to put up any H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A construction that can be recognized.

That apart, in view of our Judgment in C.A. No. 2697 of 2004 there
is no merit in these appeals. They are dismissed. The appellants are given
time of two months from this date to remove the offending constructions.
B If the appellants fail to remove them within that time, Respondent Nos. I and
2 will get the constructions removed and file a compliance report in this
regard.

N.J. Appeals allowed.