The Punjab and Haryana High Court has raised serious concerns over a significant mismatch in the number of reported illegal constructions within the ecologically sensitive Siswan forest area. The court has now directed the Panchkula administration to compile and submit a comprehensive, district-wide list of all defaulters involved in unauthorized building activities.
Court Discovers Inconsistent Data on Violations
During a recent hearing, the bench presided over by Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu scrutinized the affidavits submitted by the Panchkula Deputy Commissioner and the State of Haryana. The court identified troubling discrepancies between the two reports regarding the exact number of illegal structures in the Siswan region. This inconsistency has prompted judicial intervention to ascertain the true scale of the violations.
The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by a local resident, Vijay Bansal, highlighting the rampant illegal construction within the Siswan forest area, which falls under the purview of the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA).
Directives for a Comprehensive Defaulter List
Expressing dissatisfaction with the vague information provided, the High Court has issued clear orders. It has mandated the Panchkula Deputy Commissioner to prepare a detailed list encompassing the entire district, not just Siswan. This list must include the names of all individuals or entities who have erected illegal constructions, the specific locations of these structures, and the total area of land encroached upon.
The court has given the administration a strict deadline, requiring the submission of this comprehensive list by the next hearing scheduled for May 21. This move aims to bring transparency and accountability to the enforcement process against land and forest law violations.
Broader Implications for Enforcement and Ecology
The court's proactive stance underscores the ongoing challenge of preserving protected forest lands from urban encroachment. The Siswan case is being closely watched as a test of administrative willpower. The directive for a district-wide survey suggests the court suspects violations may be more widespread than currently acknowledged.
This judicial order puts significant pressure on the local authorities to act decisively. The compiled list will likely form the basis for future action, which could include demolition drives, imposition of penalties, and legal proceedings against the defaulters. The outcome will set a precedent for handling similar cases of environmental infringement in the region.
The next hearing on May 21 is now a critical date, as the court expects concrete data to proceed with the matter. The case highlights the continuous judicial effort to bridge the gap between policy, its implementation on the ground, and the protection of ecological zones from unauthorized development.
