HC seeks report on illegal colonies

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 18

The setting up of illegal colonies in the entire state in violation of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, has come under judicial scanner. Taking up a plea seeking directions against the coming up of such colonies in the state, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today called for a report on the issue.

A Division Bench of the High Court also ordered stay on all construction activities on a four-kanal site on the Landran road in Kharar tehsil. The stay order will remain operational till the next date of hearing in the case next month.

The direction by the Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul came on a petition filed against the state and other respondents by Mohinder Pal Singh through counsel Pankaj Jain.

He was seeking directions to the authorities to act as per the provisions of the Property Regulation Act and to ensure that illegal colonies were not allowed to come up. Referring to a layout plan, Jain submitted on the petitioner’s behalf that a respondent, owner of 4-kanal land on Landran road, was developing a colony “Ajit City”. As per the layout plan, plots have been carved out on the land and sold to various people.

Jain also referred to certain photographs annexed along with the petition to show that large-scale construction was underway on the plots. Calling attention of the Bench to Section 5 of the Act, Jain submitted any promoter desiring to develop a chunk of land into a colony was required to seek prior permission from the competent authority. Besides, the provision also made it mandatory that the minimum land required for the purpose could not be less than 1,000 sq m.

After hearing the arguments and going through the documents, the Bench issued notice of motion to the state and other respondents for December-mid.

Accepting the notice on state’s behalf, Punjab Additional Advocate-General IPS Doabia submitted that he would seek instructions and apprise the court whether similar activity in violation of the Act was going on in any other place in the state. “A composite reply along with the report shall be filed in this regard on or before the next date of hearing,” the Bench asserted before parting with the case.