Back
Cannot Shield Illegal Construction in Chandigarh:
In a significant ruling, the has upheld a against structures raised for fish farming and poultry business on agricultural land in village Mani Majra, Chandigarh, holding that the cannot be used to circumvent statutory provisions enacted to preserve the planned character of the city.
The Bench : The comprising Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Pravindra Singh Chauhan dismissed a filed by Shamshid Ahmed and 14 others challenging the dated , passed under (as amended by the (Amended) Act, 1972).
Background of the Dispute
The petitioners claimed to be running fish farming and poultry business on the land for 20–30 years. They had purchased the agricultural land through a based on , , , and . They constructed animal sheds and tin sheds and had electricity connections installed. The issued a on , following a complaint by adjoining landowners. Despite submitting documents and a representation seeking a before dispossession, the authorities passed the .
Arguments Presented
Petitioners' Contentions : Counsel argued that the petitioners are owners of the land and have a to raise construction for their livelihood. They claimed that the violated , as their documents were ignored. They also asserted that the order infringed their fundamental under .
Respondents' Stand : The and argued that the land is agricultural and falls within the "Control Area" notified under the Act. No permission for was obtained. The itself describes the land as agricultural, so the petitioners purchased it with full knowledge of . The authorities followed , including a , inquiry under Section 12(2), and a personal hearing. The respondents also objected that petitioners No. 2 to 15 had not placed any document or challenged any order against them.
Legal Analysis
The court found that the petitioners' own described the land as agricultural, and they purchased it with of . The court held that ownership of agricultural land does not confer a right to raise or change land use without permission under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. The court noted that electricity connections do not confer any right, title, or interest over land.
The court rejected the natural justice argument, noting that a was issued, an inquiry was conducted, and the was passed only after the unauthorized structures continued to exist. A of violation of natural justice, without specifics, cannot vitiate an order.
Key Observations
"the plea of ' ', howsoever sympathetically viewed cannot be permitted to operate as a licence to violate the mandatory provisions of validly enacted statute, more particularly one enacted to preserve the planned character of the cityscape of the city as unique as Chandigarh."
"the ... is not an absolute and unrestricted right and cannot be stretched to protect an activity i.e otherwise illegal"
"ownership of agricultural land... does not , confer upon the owner right to raise "
Court's Decision
The court dismissed the , holding that the was passed strictly in accordance with the Act and after due compliance with natural justice. The court rejected the plea for rehabilitation, noting that only unauthorized structures were ordered removed, not the land itself. The petitioners had built with full knowledge of the restrictions. The court also dismissed the argument of selective action, stating that the petitioners cannot claim .
Implications : The ruling reinforces the strict application of land use regulations in Chandigarh's periphery and clarifies that the cannot be used to justify violations of planning laws. It underscores the importance of obtaining prior permission for construction on agricultural land in control areas and upholds the integrity of the statutory framework designed to preserve the unique character of Chandigarh.
