Centre, UT counsel spar over forest land conversion for HC expansion

The Centre and the Chandigarh Administration counsel on Friday locked horns before the Punjab and Haryana High Court over the proposal to convert adjoining forest land into non-forest area to facilitate the expansion of the court premises. The clash came less than a month after the issue was first flagged during a hearing on the matter.

Appearing before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, UT senior standing counsel Amit Jhanjhi asserted that the forest land could not be de-reserved for the project. He insisted that it was “never an issue for consideration before the administration.”

Appearing before the Bench, Jhanji referred to a communication, which said: “The land proposed for extension of High Court is an eco-fragile lush green patch of reserve forest notified by Chandigarh Administration under Indian Forest Act 1927. It is a part of Sukhna Lake/Wetland catchment as delineated in the Survey of India map dated September 21, 2004. Proposed forest land is also a part of the eco-sensitive zone of Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary notified under Environment (Protection) Act on January 10, 2017.”

Taking strong exception, Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain shot back that the real hurdle was the lack of willpower, not legality. “People who have to do it lack willpower,” Jain remarked, pointing to his own experience as Chandigarh’s MP when he pursued the construction of the Kaimbwala route despite objections regarding it being forest land. “That road reduced travel time by 10 km”, he said

Referring to the current controversy, Jain added: “The officers think they can pass any order and justify it. But the issue required just about a week, if there was will to do it,” he added.

Taking a note of the submissions, Chief Justice Nagu asserted: “Where there is will, there is a way.”

Jain, meanwhile, described the UT’s stand as “very unfortunate,” reminding the stakeholders that the proposal for de-reservation had in fact come up during an earlier hearing. He urged the administration to “come out of the ego problem” and resolve the matter within a week.

The Bench was also informed by the High Court Bar Association that the question of shifting the court premises to a new location was not placed before its general house. “The proposal regarding shifting was not discussed as the issue of de-reservation of forest land had cropped up,” Bar President SS Narula and senior advocate RS Khosla said, adding that the UT’s reluctance to move ahead should be formally recorded so that the general house could deliberate on alternatives, including relocation.

On the infrastructure crunch, the court was apprised that the High Court presently functions with 69 courtrooms against a sanctioned strength of 85 judges. If staff members occupying some courtrooms were shifted, the number could potentially be raised to 89. The Bench was further told of another plan approved by the UT Administration for the construction of 16 additional courtrooms. The proposal envisages two floors with eight courtrooms each, along with two basement levels for parking, providing nearly two lakh square feet of additional space.

Taking note, the Chief Justice verbally observed, “Let us go ahead with that.” The Bench deferred further hearing to September 26 for the Bar Association to convene its general house to consider the question of shifting the High Court and explore other alternatives.