High Court Demands Legal Specifics in Rajpura Illegal Colony Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed petitioners to provide greater legal clarity in a case concerning an alleged illegal colony developed in Rajpura, Patiala district. A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry heard the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which accuses a local resident of creating an unauthorized residential colony in alleged collusion with municipal and revenue officials.
The Allegations and Contradictory NOCs
According to the petition, a resident of Sham Nagar, Rajpura, illegally developed a colony on four bighas of land in Khasra No. 964/841/28 at Ganesh Nagar, near Patel School in Ward 22. The development allegedly proceeded without securing the mandatory license under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act (PAPRA), change of land use (CLU) permission, or layout plan approval from the municipal council.
In a significant contradiction, the petition highlights that the Executive Officer of the Rajpura Municipal Council had, on February 24, 2024, warned against illegal plotting on this land and instructed the tehsildar not to register any sale deeds. However, the same officer later issued two No Objection Certificates (NOCs) on October 7 and October 29, 2024, declaring the land fell within municipal limits and was not unauthorized.
RTI Revelations and Sale Deeds
RTI replies annexed with the PIL confirm that no official record exists for any colony approval, CLU clearance, or reservation of public amenity space for this project. Despite the earlier warning, the tehsildar, relying on the newly issued NOCs, allegedly registered 18 sale deeds between October and December 2024.
The petitioners, Pawan Kumar and Pawan Mukhija, represented by Advocate Manik Makkar, have sought several remedies from the court. These include:
- Quashing the two NOCs issued by the executive officer.
- A declaration that the 18 sale deeds are null and void.
- A bar on further registration of sale deeds or construction on the land.
- Departmental and criminal action against the executive officer and the tehsildar.
- Filing an FIR against the colonizer, Sushil Kumar.
- Directions to the state government to frame a plan to protect buyers who invested in the illegal colony.
Court's Query and State's Response
During the hearing, the bench specifically asked the petitioners' counsel to identify the exact section of law under which an unauthorized colony could be halted or its sale deeds invalidated. The court questioned, "What is the relevant Act? Which provision? Where is the remedy?"
Meanwhile, Additional Advocate General Salil Sabhlok, representing the state, labeled the PIL a "proxy litigation". He argued that it was filed on behalf of plot buyers who were avoiding the statutory remedies available to them under the law.
The petitioner's counsel has been granted time to return prepared with the relevant legal provisions for the next date of hearing.
