Punjab and Haryana High Court Slams GMADA Over Incomplete Affidavit on Siswan Forest Land Violations
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a firm stance against the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) for its inadequate handling of illegal constructions in the Siswan forest area. In a significant ruling, the court rejected GMADA's status report on unauthorized constructions, labeling it as evasive and non-compliant with judicial directives. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, imposed interim costs of Rs 25,000 on GMADA, to be deposited in the Poor Patients Welfare Fund of PGI Chandigarh.
Court Hearing on Alleged Illegal Constructions in Siswan
The court was addressing a petition concerning alleged illegal commercial and other constructions in and around the Siswan forest area, located in the SAS Nagar district. During the proceedings, counsel representing private respondents and affected parties accused GMADA of submitting misleading replies that understated the number of violators and failed to outline concrete actions taken against them.
Initially, the Forest Department had informed the court of 182 defaulters across the SAS Nagar district. In contrast, GMADA's first response mentioned only 28 violators in Siswan village. Following court scrutiny of these discrepancies, GMADA filed a subsequent affidavit acknowledging 193 unauthorized constructions and claiming initiation of action under relevant acts, including the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, and the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952.
Key Deficiencies in GMADA's Affidavit
However, the petitioner's counsel expressed dissatisfaction, highlighting that the affidavit lacked critical details. The court noted several major shortcomings:
- Contradictory Figures: GMADA's initial report of 28 violators was vastly different from the Forest Department's count of 182, later revised to 193 by GMADA itself.
- Incomplete Enforcement Details: The affidavit failed to disclose dates of notice issuance, nature of violations, and the current stage of proceedings against each violator.
- Lack of Clarity on Appeals: There was no information on whether appeals were pending, if interim orders were in effect, or if commercial activities continued despite prohibitory orders.
- Evasive Reporting: The status report was deemed non-speaking and did not provide a comprehensive picture of enforcement efforts, contrary to the court's earlier instructions.
- Selective Enforcement: Allegations surfaced that some establishments faced swift shutdowns while others operated despite long-pending notices, indicating inconsistent action.
- Irrelevant References: GMADA relied on unrelated contempt proceedings and past orders without explaining their relevance to the current case.
Court's Directives and Future Proceedings
The bench emphasized that authorities must come clean when dealing with forest land and environmental violations. It granted GMADA liberty to file a fresh affidavit with complete particulars, including:
- Detailed timelines of notices issued.
- Specific actions taken against each violator.
- Status of any pending appeals and interim protections.
- Clarity on whether commercial activities have been halted.
The court warned that failure to provide transparent and thorough information would not be tolerated. The matter has been listed for further hearing next week, with GMADA required to submit the revised affidavit promptly. This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding environmental laws and ensuring accountability in governance, particularly in sensitive forest areas like Siswan.
