Follow Us
Tribune News Service
Shimla, March 31
Aimed at providing relief to owners of over 25,000 unauthorised structures made in violation of building norms, the State Government has filed a review petition in the High Court against its earlier order restraining the amendment in the Town and Country Planning Act to give relief to the violators.
The review petition was filed in the High Court on Friday against the earlier order passed by a Division Bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Sanjay Karol of December 22, 2017. The court in its order had struck down the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Regularisation Amendment Act, 2016 allowing the regularisation of unauthorised structure, be it residential or commercial.
The Congress and BJP have been in favour of granting relief to people whose buildings have not been regularised due to violation in building norms and deviation from the approved building plan by the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Department. The number of such structures is estimated to be over 25,000 with the highest concentration being in Shimla, urban and rural areas.
The fate of these unauthorised structures has been hanging in balance as the High Court and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has come down heavily on the Government for being sympathetic towards the violators. The High Court through an earlier decision had barred the State Government from bringing in retention policy to give relief to the owners of these illegal structures. A total of six such policies have been made from time to time to accommodate violators.
The ruling
Insertion of Section 30-B by the amending Act is contrary to the object and purpose of the principal Act, as also ultra vires of the Constitution of India. The Bench
Unfettered power to govt
It observed that Section 30-B of the amending Act gave “unfettered power” to the government to regularise all illegal constructions carried out either without any sanction or in excess of the compoundable limits. “The amending Act is in fact a legislation for a class of dishonest persons,” the 86 page judgment read.
4