M/S. ROYAL PARASDISE HOTEL (P) LTD.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

A                    M/S. ROYAL PARASDISE HOTEL (P) LTD.
                                            v.
                          STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

                                   AUGUST 25, 2006

B         [G.P. MATHUR, P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN AND DALVEER
                              BHANDARI, JJ.)


            Lands and Buildings

C          Punjab Scheduled Road and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated
      Development) Act, 1963: Sections 3, 6, 7(1), JO and 12.

            Urban areas-Regulated development-Constructions made in violation
      of /aw-Regularization-Permissibility of-Offending construction put up in a
      controlled area in defiance of the provisions of law and directions to stop
D     such unauthorized construction-But the unauthorized construction was not
      stopped-Order under S. 12(2) was passed to remove the unauthorized
      construction-Claim for compounding and regularization of the unauthorized
      construction rejected by High Court-Correctness of-Held: The construction
      was made in the teeth of the notices and the directions to stop the unauthorized
E     construction-Those who defY the law would not be permitted to reap the
      benefit of their defiance of law-Such deliberate violations cannot be
      compounded and regularized-Marginal or insignificant accidental violations
      unconsciously made can alone qualify for regularization-Hence, High Court
      rightly rejected the claim for regularization.

F           The predecessor of the appellant had received a notice under Section
      12 of the Punjab Scheduled Road and Controlled Areas (Restriction of
      Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 informing him of contravention of
      Section 3 or Section 6 and of violation of Section 7(1) and Section 10 of
      the Act and directing him to stop further construction. When it was found
      that he was defying the direction to stop, an order was passed under
G     Section 12(2) of the Act directing him to remove the unauthorized
      construction. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court
      claiming compounding or regularization of the constructions, which was
      dismissed. Hence the appeal.

            Dismissing the appeal, the Court
I-I                                        396
               ROY AL PARASDISE HOTEL (P) LTD. r. STATE OF HAR YANA        397

       HELD: 1. The fact remains that the construction was made in the            A
  teeth of the notices and the directions to stop the unauthorized
 construction. Thus, the predecessor of the appellant put up the offending
  construction in a controlled area in defiance of the provisions of law
  preventing such a construction and in spite of notices and orders to stop
 the construction activity. The constructions put up are thus illegal and         B
 unauthorized and put up in defiance of law. The appellant is only an
 assignee from the person who put up such a construction and his present
 attempt is to defeat the statute and the statutory scheme of protecting the
 sides of highways in the interest of general public and moving traffic on
 such highways. Therefore, this is a fit case for refusal of interference by
 this Court against the decision declining the regularization sought for by       C
 the appellant Such violations cannot be compounded and the prayer of
 the appellant was rightly rejected by the authorities and the High Court
 was correct in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. It is time
 that the message goes aboard that those who defy the law would not be
 permitted to reap the benefit of their defiance of law and it is the duty of
 High Courts to ensure that such violators of law are not rewarded. The           D
 High Court was, therefore, fully justified in refusing to interfere in the
 matter. The High Court was rightly conscious of its duty to ensure that
 the violators of law do not get away with it. (401-B-Fl

        2. No authority administering municipal laws and other laws like the      E
  Punjab Scheduled Road and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated
  Development) Act, 1963 can encourage such violations. Even otherwise,
  compounding is not to be done when the violations are deliberate, designed,
  reckless or motivated. Marginal or insignificant accidental violations
. unconsciously made after trying to comply with all requirements of the
  law can alone qualify for regularization which is not the rule, but a rare      F
  exception. The authorities and the High Court were hence right in refusing
  the request of the appellant. (401-F, GJ

      3. Even if subsequently a Municipality Act has been extended, the
illegality and violation of the Act cannot be condoned by the Authorities         ,...,
under that Act or by any Court administering law and justice and no               0

authority, whether the highways authority or the municipal authority, is
entitled to reward a person indulging in such an illegal activity.
                                                                [402-A, BJ
    398                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 3 of 2005
                                            IN
          Civil Appeal No. 5647 of 2005.
                                           ANO
B         Civil Appeal No. 5647 of 2005.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.2003 of the High Court of
    Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 14086/2003.
                                          WITH

C         I.A. No. 2 of 2005.

          K.T.S. Tulsi, Abha R. Sharma and Sunita R. Singh for the Appellant.

         Manjeet Singh, Addi. A.G., Harikesh Singh and T.V. George for the
D   Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, J. 1. Special Leave Petition (Civil)
  No. 15503 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner therein challenging the order
E of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 8.9.2003, dismissing the Writ
  Petition filed by it on the ground that the order impugned therein was legal,
  proper and just and the claim for regularization made by the petitioner could
  not be granted over-riding the stipulated land use of the area in question.
  When the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal came up, though at the initial
  stage, it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that the issue arising for the
F decision was not identical with the issue arising for decision in C.A. No.
  2671 of 2004, on the subsequent day when it came up for admission, the
  same was got tagged with C.A. No. 2671 of2004 and connected matters after
  persuading this Court to issue notice on it. It is apparent from the order dated
  29.7.2004 that at that stage, this Court was told that the question that arose
G for decision was the same as the one arising in C.A. No. 2671 of 2004. On
  2.12.2004, this Court finally disposed of Civil Appeal No. 2671 of 2004 and
  the connected matters by upholding the decision of the High Court and granting     r
  time to the appellants therein to remove the constructions put up by them
  found to be offensive in terms of the relevant legislation. Thereafter, the
  present Petition for Special Leave to Appeal came up on 25.7.2005 and it
H was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. The
 ROY AL PARASOISE HOTEL (P) LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.j 399

 Petition for Special Leave to appeal again came up on 26.7.2005 and it was A
 directed that the matters be placed for hearing on 27.7.2005 specifically
 directing that Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15503 of 2004 will also be
 listed for hearing that day. Ultimately, on 7.9.2005, when this Court took up
 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15503 of2004 along with the other matters
posted with it, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, but this Court B
granted leave and disposed of the appeal holding that the question raised was
squarely covered by the decision of this Court in C.A. No. 2671 of 2004 and
the connected cases decided on 2.12.2004. In that Petition for Special Leave
to Appeal, the petitioner had also filed I.A. No. 2 of 2005 seeking to plead
certain facts which were neither put forward in the High Court nor urged at
the hearing of the Writ Petition in the High Court. For that matter, these facts C
were not agitated even before the authorities who had rejected the claim of
the petitioner for compounding under the relevant statute.

       2. In the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal which transformed into
a Civil appeal, the appellant filed I.A. No. 3 of 2005 on 23.9.2005 praying
for what it called the restoration of the Civil Appeal by recalling the order D
dated 7. 9.2005 disposing of the appeal. The reason put forward was that the
learned counsel for the appellant could not be present when the case was
called on for hearing due to the fact that she had to rush to the hospital with
a relative of hers for urgent attention and by the time she returned, the matter
had been disposed of. Considering that the learned counsel had not been E
heard as recorded in the order itself, and for no other reason, we entertained
the application I.A. No. 3 of 2005 and issued notice therein by our Order
dated 5. i .2006. The application for restoration of the appeal, the appeal and
I.A. No. 2 of 2005, have all come up again for hearing and final disposal.

      3. In the view that the learned counsel was not heard when we passed       F
the order dated 7.9.2005, we allow I.A. No. 3 of 2003 so as to give the
appellant an opportunity of being heard.

      4. The. appeal was reheard with counsel on both sides ably assisting the
court at the te-hearing.
                                                                                 G
      5. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant
sub~itted that the case of the appellant was that refusal to accept the
compounding fee and condone the violations made by the predecessor of the
appellant by putting up the disputed constructions was challenged in the High
Court and it was that Writ Petition that was dismissed by the High Court.
                                                                                 H
    400                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Though, he agreed that the decision in C.A. No. 2671 of 2004 and the
    connected matters dealing with similar constructions found to be unauthorized
    had some relevance, he contended that the present appeal was not wholly
    covered by the decision already rendered in those cases and that the appellant's
    claim had to be considered separately.

B       6. It was submitted that a construction was put up within 50 mtrs. of
  the high-way and that at the relevant time that was not impermissible and this
  aspect had not been considered while considering the claim of the appellant
  for compounding. It was further contended that the area in question has now
  come within the municipal limits and the prayer of the appellant had to be
C considered under the law governing Municipalities. Learned counsel for the
  respondent submitted that such a construction was impermissible, that the
  building was constructed in the teeth of notices issued under the Punjab
  Scheduled Road and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated
  Development) Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") and it was clearly illegal. It
  was clear defiance of law. The appellant was only an assignee of such illegal
D construction and therefore this is a case where there is no reason for this
  Court to interfere with the refusal of the authorities to accede to the prayer
  for compounding or regularizing the constructions and violations and the
  decision of the High Court refusing to interfere with that decision. He also
  submitted that the new point sought to be raised is a point which was never
E raised before the authorities or before the High Court or even in the Petition
  for Special Leave to Appeal and they are sought to be introduced only by
  way of I.A. No. 2 of 2005 aP-d there was no justification in permitting the
  appellant to raise these factual aspects at this stage especially considering his
  prior conduct. He pointed out that the notice was got issued on the Petition
  for Special Leave to Appeal by submitting that it was connected with C.A.
F No. 2671 of 2004 and now that C.A. No. 2671 of 2004 has been dismissed
  by this Court by a considered Judgment, there was nothing to be done in this
  appeal and it deserves to be dismissed.

        7. It is clear from the statement of the synopsis and list of dates furnished
  by the appellant itself, that on 4.2.1998, Mr. Chawla, who put up the
G construction before it was sold to the appellant received a notice under Section
  12 of the Act informing him of contravention of Section 3 or Section 6 and
  of violation of Section 7(1) and Section 10 of the Act and directing him to
  stop further construction. When it was found that the appellant was defying
  the direction to stop, an order was passed on 26.2.1998 under sub-Section (2)
H of Section 12 of the Act directing him to remove the unauthorized construction
     ROYAL PARASDISEHOTEL (P) LTD "- STATE OF HARY ANA [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 40]

     and to bring the site in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Act on A
     finding that there was clear violation of Section 7 and Section 10 of the Act.
     On 16.3.1999, another notice was issued to Mr. Chawla mentioning therein
     that there is a contravention of Section 7( 1) or Section 10 of the Act and
     directing removal of the unauthorized construction. The copies of the original
    notices are produced by the respondents along with the counter affidavit filed B
    on behalf of the respondent Nos. I to 3. Though the copies of such notices
    have been produced by .the appellant also, we find that there are some
     omissions in the copies produced on behalf of the appellant. Whatever it be,
    the fact remains that the construction was made in the teeth of the notices and
    the directions to stop the unauthorized construction. Thus, the predecessor
    of the appellant put up the offending construction in a controlled area in C
    defiance of the provisions of law preventing such a construction and in spite
    of notices and orders to stop the construction activity. The constructions put
    up are thus illegal and unauthorized and put up in defiance of law. The
    appellant is only an assignee from the person who put up such a construction
    and his" present attempt is to defeat the statute and the statutory scheme of
    protecting the sides of highways in the interest of general public and moving D
    traffic on such highways. Therefore, this is a fit case for refusal of interference
    by this Court against the decision declining the regularization sought for by
    the appellant. Such violations cannot be compounded and the prayer of the
    appellant was rightly rejected by the authorities and the High Court was
    correct in dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. It is time that E
    the message goes aboard that those who defy the law would not be permitted
    to reap the benefit of their defiance of law and it is the duty of High Courts
    to ensure that such defiers of law are not rewarded. The High Court was
    therefore fully justified in refusing to interfere in the matter. The High
    Court was rightly conscious of its duty to ensure that violators of law do not
    get away with it.                                                                   F

          8. We also find no merit in the argument that regularization of the acts
    of violation of the provisions of the Act ought to have been permitted. No
    authority administering municipal laws and other laws like the Act involved
    here, can encourage such violations. Even otherwise, compounding is not to G
    be done when the violations are deliberate, designed, reckless or motivated.
    Marginal or insignificant accidental violations unconsciously made after trying
    to comply with all the requirements of the law can alone qualify for


-
    regularization which is not the rule, but a rare exception. The authorities and
    the High Court were hence right in refusing the request of the appellant.
                                                                                      H
    402                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A          9. As regards the alleged inclusion of this area in Kamal Municipality,
    we find that such a contention was never put forward. Even if subsequently
    a Municipality Act has been extended, the illegality and violation of the Act
    cannot be condoned by the Authorities under that Act or by any Court
    administering law and justice and no authority, whether the highway authority
    or the municipal authority, is entitled to reward a person indulging in such
B   illegal activity. Therefore, nothing turns on the point sought to be raised for
    the first time in this Court by the appellant by way of I.A. No. 2 of 2005.
    The plea based on that is hence rejected.

          I0. On the whole, we find that the appellant has not made out any
C   ground for interference with the decision of the High Court. Hence, we
    dismiss this appeal with costs.

           11. We had ordered the status quo to be maintained since we had
    entertained I.A. No.3 of 2005, the application for rehearing. Now that we
    have dismissed the appeal after a detailed hearing, we vacate the order of
D   status quo and direct the appellant to remove the offending constructions and
    the other violations of the Act within a period of six weeks from today. In
    case, the appellant does not remove the offending constructions and the other
    violations on its own, within that time, the respondents will remove the
    constructions and all violations of the Act within a period of ten weeks from
    today and report that fact of removal to this Court through an affidavit of
E   respondent No.3 to be filed in this Court within twelve weeks from today.

          12. Thus I.A. No. 3 of 2005 is allowed and the appeal reheard. Civil
    Appeal No. 5647 of 2005 is dismissed with costs, but with the directions in
    paragraph 11 and I.A. No. 2 of 2005 is disposed of in the light of what is
F   stated above.

    v.s.s.                                                     Appeal dismissed.