S.S. Grewal, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') relates to setting aside of quashment of order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, dated 18 -2-198 3, Annexure P-l as well as the order passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, dated 2-9-1987, Annexure P-2.
2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, are that Gurmukh Singh respondent was owner of land measuring 15 Bighas 3 Biswas in village Dhakansu Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. He carved out 20 plots from his land and sold them to 20 persons during the period 6th January, 1981 to 24th January, 1982 through registered sale deeds in contravention of the provisions of Section 8(1) punishable under Section 11 (1) of the Punjab Regulation of Colonies Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3. Mrs. Bhatia, appearing on behalf of the State contended that since 20 plots sold by the respondent to different vendees comprise of compact area of land which would be covered by the definition of colony as contemplated under Section 2{c) of the Act, as such it was obligatory for the present respondent to take licence under sub section (2) of Section 4 of the Act before sale of aforesaid plots in the colony whether for residential or such like other purposes.
4. Admittedly, the land said to have been sold by the respondent is situated in a remote rural area and not in any urban, suburban or other contiguous areas. There is no specific provision in the Act as to whether the same covers remote rural area, or, the entire Sate of Punjab. As such the cardinal rule of interpretation in this regard is to look to the preamble of the Act as the guiding light.
5. The Statement of objects and reasons for the said enactment is reproduced as under:-
'The increasing trend towards urbanisation has led to considerable increase in the demand for residential plot to urban areas. This situation has been fully exploited by the private colonisers. As a result of this activity numerous residential colonies have come up, which are badly planned and are sub standard from the point of view or provision of basic civil amenities. In the process, however, the private coloniser has amassed considerable wealth. The direct result has been that while the State has not at all profitted from the change in the land use, its burden and liability has increased because ultimately the responsibility of providing civil amenities in these colonies devolves upon it. It has, therefore, become imperative to undertake Legislation to control and regulate colonisation by private colonisers '
6. The very opening lines of Statement of objects and reasons leave no manner of doubt, that the Act has been framed with a view to curb the increasing trend towards urbanisation, which, has led to considerable increase in the demand for residential plots to urban area. Thus the Act would be applicable only in respect of sale of land for urbanisation, or, concerning sale of residential plots in the urban or sub urban or contiguous areas, in order to control and regulate colonisation by private colonisers, and, not to sale of plots for such purposes in the remote rural area, which has nothing much to do either with the urbanisation, or, sale of residential plots to urban area in the absence of any specific allegations in the complaint that the land sold in the instant case is meant for urbanisation or relates to meet the demand for residental plots in any urban, sub-urban or contiguos area it cannot be held that the stringent provisions of the said Act would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
7 In Division Bench authority of this Court in S. Hardam Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1983) 85 P. L. R. 657, relied upon by the State counsel, it was held that 'both the object and the purpose of the Punjab Regulation of Colonies Act, 1975 are not only laudable but indeed are an essential social necessity in modern urbanisation Far from being in any way unconstitutional, the provisions of the Act sub serve to the larger social purpose against the narrowly acquisitive ones of individual financial gain and are clearly within the ambit of reasonable restrictions.' The question whether the said Act would apply only to urban, sub-urban or contiguous areas and not to remote rural areas which has nothing much to do either with urbanisation or relates to meet the demand for residential plots in any urban, sub urban or contiguous areas, was neither posed nor specifically considered by the Division Bench is S. Hardam Singh's case (supra). As such the said authority would not he helpful in deciding the question whether the said Act would be strictly applicable as far the land in dispute in the present case is concerned.
8. In this context, it is also significant to note that in none of the sale-deeds there is any specific recital that the plots have been sold for residential, commercial, industrial or other building purposes. Mere mention in some of the sale-deeds that the right of construction too had been given to the vendees would not be sufficient to hold that the land in dispute has been sold mainly for residential, commercial, industrial or other building purposes as contemplated under Section 2(c) of the Act It is also pertinent to note that even though the complaint, in the instant case, was filed in the year 1984 re. after more than two years of the said sales, no construction was made on any one of the 20 plots sold by the respondent to the vendees. Nor any such construction has been made later on. In these circumstances both the courts below rightly held that there was no satisfactory evidence to conclude that the land in dispute had been sold for raising construction for residential, commercial, industrial or any other building purposes as mentioned in Section 2(c) of the Act.
9 For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the orders passed by both the Courts below cannot be said to be illegal, unjust or perverse. This petition is accordingly dismissed.