Planning statute prosecutions turn on disputed facts; the criminal court must decide whether the alleged violation is proved.

Under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, use of land or buildings contrary to the operative plan attracts penal consequences under Section 29(2), but liability depends on factual proof that the particular premises were assigned a specified use and that the offence ingredients are made out. Where those matters are disputed, the High Court should not quash the prosecution in writ or revisional jurisdiction merely because the Master Plan does not expressly specify the use. The proper course is for the criminal court to assess the evidence and determine whether the alleged violation is established. The prosecutions were therefore required to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the prosecutions under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 on the ground that the Master Plan had not specified the use of the buildings in question, and whether such disputed matters ought to have been left to the criminal court.

Analysis: Section 14 prohibits use of any land or building otherwise than in conformity with the operative plan, and Section 29(2) provides the penal consequence for violation. The validity of a prosecution under these provisions depended not merely on the wording of the Master Plan but also on factual questions, including whether the particular buildings had been assigned a specified use and whether the ingredients of the offence were established. The High Court, instead of leaving those matters to be determined in the pending criminal proceedings, entered upon the question and quashed the prosecutions in writ and revisional jurisdiction. The proper course was for the criminal court to assess the evidence and decide whether the alleged violation was made out.

Conclusion: The quashing of the prosecutions was not justified, and the prosecutions were required to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged contravention of a planning statute turns on disputed factual issues and the establishment of penal liability, the High Court should ordinarily not quash the prosecution in writ or revisional jurisdiction and should leave the matter to the trial court.

---