9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .21547 of 2011 (Jagjit Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors.), issues relating to (i) the unending traffic jams due to unauthorized parking of hundreds of vehicles on the roadside in front of Marriage Palaces, (ii) road-accidents caused due to chaotic conditions and unauthorized construction of Marriage Palaces/Resorts in violation of provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (in short, 'the 1963 Act') or the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, (in short, 'the 1995 Act') were raked up. The PIL Bench was apprised on 24th July, 2012 that there were as many as 92 Marriage Palaces in Patiala district alone situated outside the Municipal limits, out of which only 10 had obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from the Town and Country Planning Department before the construction started. This Court, on that day, observed and directed as follows:- "We feel that such an action on the part of the officials is not justified. The Deputy Commissioner, Patiala is directed not to allow opening of that marriage palace till further orders. It is further stated that one marriage palace namely U.K. Resorts is unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed norms. The authorities were accordingly permitted to scrutinize the case of those marriage palaces. (7) The draft Policy was thereafter notified formulating the 'Building Norms for Regularization of the existing Marriage Palaces and for setting up of new Marriage Palaces in the State of Punjab'. The Policy, inter alia, prescribes (i) Permissible Zones for Marriage Palaces; (ii) Building Norms including at least 100 mtrs. distance from the site of a school, college or hospital and the parking of vehicles within the premises and no vehicle to be parked on road or roadside; (iii) Schedule of area and other norms for setting up new marriage palaces; (iv) Regularization of existing marriage palaces along with CLU/EDC/PF/SIF charges and various other fees (Annexure-D); (v) bifurcation of the entire State into 8 zones and the different rates of charges/fees for the regularization of the existing marriage palaces for each zone ranging from Rs. 4 lac to Rs. 50 lac per gross acre. (8) The petitioners, who represent the existing marriage palaces, thus, impugn the subject-Policy on multiple grounds including that - (i) the marriage palaces constructed on the scheduled roads and the by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s assessment by the Arbitrator; (viii) The prescription of different rates of charges/fee for different zones under the impugned Policy has no intelligible classification, for a marriage palace in a village like Mullanpur (in close vicinity of Chandigarh) is required to pay higher charges than those prescribed for a marriage palace located within the Municipal limits of Ludhiana; (ix) The impugned Policy is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as it imposes unreasonable restrictions on the business activities of the petitioners; (x) The fixation of short period of three months to apply and seek regularization along with 50% of the charges/fee is highly unreasonable, unjust and unfair; (xi) 'Marriage palaces' fall within the ambit of 'buildings' for the purpose of later policy notified on 21st August, 2013 (Annexure A) for regularization of unauthorized colonies and plots/buildings. (9) Respondents No.1,2&10 have filed their joint written statement clarifying that the notification dated 16th November, 2012 stands modified vide notification dated 07.01.2013 (Annexure R2) and as per the amended policy, an unauthorized marriage palace is initially required to de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the impugned policy does not stand to the touchstone of Equality within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution? (ii) Whether the rates of various charges and fee levied under the Policy have been prescribed arbitrarily and irrationally? (iii) Whether the impugned policy has been given retrospective effect by enforcing against the existing marriage palaces also? Whether the impugned policy does not stand to the touchstone of Equality within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution? (13) The foremost contention revolves around the purported discrimination meted out to marriage palaces as compared to Hotels in respect of CLU/EDC charges or the licence/permission fee. A pointed reference was made to the notification dated 11th January, 2008 whereunder the above-stated charges for Hotels etc. have been prescribed. The notification dated 11th January, 2008 unveils that the State Government with a view to upgrade the development of infrastructure realized the need of adequate number of 'institutions', 'hospitals', 'multi-media centres' and 'hotels'. The following category of 'Hotels' fall within the ambit of this Policy:- "It must have a minimum plot size of 500 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o for the reason that firstly the CLU and EDC charges have been prescribed after due deliberations and keeping in view the relevant factors like the Collector rates, the value of land and its potentiality etc. These charges have been increased wherever the proportionately higher FAR has been allowed. Secondly, the record produced before us does indicate that the relevant information was called for and the rates were recommended on the basis of a uniform criteria which were finally approved by the Council of Ministers. Thirdly, the prescription of rate(s) of statutory charges or fee is essentially a policy matter where the Court would be wisely reluctant to interfere. Fourthly, the information given by the District Town Planner (HQ) suggests that most of the marriage palaces have accepted the notified rates and have applied for regularization. Fifthly, the Government of Punjab has vide notification dated 6th May, 2013 partially modified its previous policy decisions including the impugned one dated 16th November, 2012 and the rates of EDC, CLU, PF/LF/SIF have been suitably reduced. The grievance of the petitioners with regard to the alleged excessive rates of EDC/CLU etc. has thus b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subject of such charges). Sub-Section (3) is inapplicable where charges so levied fall within the limit of sub-Section (2) of Section 139 of the 1995 Act. (19) We may also refer to the first proviso to sub-Section (2)(b) of Section 139 to meet with the petitioners' contention that levy of EDC at different rates for different zones is impermissible. The aforesaid provision explicitly enables prescription of different rates of development charges for different parts of the planning area. The second issue stands answered accordingly. Whether the impugned policy has been given retrospective effect by enforcing against the existing marriage palaces also? (20) It appears to us that the subject policy is purposefully retroactive so as to give effect and comply with the directions issued by this Court in exercise of PIL jurisdiction. Various vital issues of paramount public importance like, public safety, congestion on roads and parking chaos created by the 'existing marriage palaces', were the subject-matter of consideration in the cited PIL. Every direction issued by this Court, some of which are reproduced above, pertains to the existing marriage palaces only. The petitioners cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unicipal limits (where the 1963 Act applies) and only 10 of them had obtained No Objection Certificates. Large scale marriage palaces were thus constructed abutting the roads regulated under the 1963 Act without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority. (23) The 1963 Act has been repealed by virtue of Section 183(1)(i) of the 1995 Act. However, Section 143 of the 1995 Act also prohibits erection or re-erection of building within a distance of 150 mtrs. on either side of road reservation of a bypass or within a distance of 50 mtrs. on either side of road reservation of any scheduled road not being a bypass. (24) Additionally, Section 56 of the 1995 Act empowers the State Government to declare any area in the State to be a 'regional planning area', a 'local planning area' or a site for new town. After such declaration, a Regional Plan is to be prepared and notified under the provisions contained in Chapter IX of the Act. On the basis of the Regional Plan, Master Plan of such area is required to be prepared by the Designated Planning Agency. Section 79 of the 1995 Act then mandates that after the Master Plan of any area comes into operation, no person can use any land o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em. Assuming they don't use either, the ground water is not their personal property. There are innumerable allied burdens also put on the State Exchequer by the activities of marriage palaces like maintenance of law and order, traffic control, monitoring by pollution controlling agencies etc. It is thus totally farce to say that they are being asked to pay hefty charges or fee without any services in lieu thereof. (28) As regard to the petitioners' grievance against prescription of 50% of the plot area for 'parking', learned State counsel clarified that the petitioners have misconstrued the said provision as they are only required to spare 50% of the gross area for parking which may include a multi-level parking as also the basement parking. The petitioners are not required to leave half of their land for 'parking' as they may provide dedicated parking area equivalent to 50% of their gross area may be through the multi-level parking etc. (29) The petitioners also made a futile effort to bring 'marriage palaces' within the purview of notification dated 21st August, 2013 whereunder unauthorized colonies and the plots/buildings falling within those colonies are to be regularized. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. (IV) If the policy is found to be against any statute or the Constitution or runs counter to the philosophy behind these provisions. (V) It is dehors the provisions of the Act or Legislations. (VI) If the delegate has acted beyond its power of delegation. (32) The petitioner-Marriage Palace, in CWP No.25433 of 2012, has made an additional submission against the classification of zones into three categories, namely, (i) within the Municipal limits; (ii) outside the Municipal limits; and (iii) outside the Municipal limits within 15 kms. The petitioner-Marriage Palace was constructed in the year 2001 and is located near Amritsar city though it appears to be outside the Municipal limits but within 15 kms. of such limit. The petitioner wants the merger of categories No.(ii) & (iii) stated above so that it is not required to pay the higher charges prescribed for those falling within category-(iii). We have already held that EDC/CLU charges have been prescribed by the State Government keeping in view various relevant factors including the value and potentiality of land and the expected multiple utilities of the building. The rationality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
