Punjab and Haryana High Court – FIR Under PAPRA Quashed Against Proposed Purchasers; Mere Agreement to Sell Does Not Constitute ‘Promoter’
Case Name: Rakesh Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab and Another
Citation: CRM-M No. 24796 of 2014
Date of Judgment: 6 January 2020
Bench: Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that proposed buyers of land cannot be prosecuted under Sections 36(1) and 36(3) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA) when they never acquired title or possession of the land and no unauthorized colony existed at the spot. Mere clauses in agreements to sell allowing resale of land as a single plot or small plots do not render proposed buyers “promoters” under PAPRA.
Summary: FIR No. 14 dated 24.02.2012 was registered at the instance of a PUDA Junior Engineer alleging that certain landowners had carved out an unauthorized colony at village Nanowal, District Patiala, without obtaining a licence under PAPRA, and that the petitioners as proposed buyers were also guilty as they had agreements to sell allowing them to resell the land. During investigation, all nine landowners were exonerated, but the petitioners continued as accused despite having no title. Their civil suits for injunction against the landowners had already been dismissed, and no suit for specific performance was filed. A spot inspection report dated 22.02.2019 confirmed that the land remained agricultural, with wheat and fodder crops standing, and no unauthorized colony or plots existed. The High Court found that PUDA never challenged the exoneration of landowners, and that the petitioners, being mere proposed buyers, did not fall within the statutory definition of “promoter” under Section 2(y) PAPRA. It noted that allegations of constructing temporary kachcha roads were not borne out by inspection reports and revenue records.
Decision: Allowing the petition, the Court quashed FIR No. 14 dated 24.02.2012 under Sections 36(1) and 36(3) PAPRA and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners, holding that no offence was made out when neither title nor possession was transferred and the land remained under cultivation by the original owners.