HC stays demolition in Sukhna catchment

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 18

Just over nine months after the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a slew of commandments, including the demolition of constructions in the catchment area of Sukhna Lake, a Division Bench today ordered keeping the directions in abeyance.

What the Bench observed

The Bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu also made clear its intent to examine the catchment area of the lake. As the matter came up for hearing through videoconferencing, the Bench verbally observed that the most important question for determination was: “What was the catchment area and who would be the competent authorities to demarcate such area?”

The rider

• The Bench made it clear that the order was subject to an assurance by the states of Punjab and Haryana that no further construction would be undertaken in the catchment area.

The order, providing a major relief to the residents of Kansal, Kaimbwala, Saketri and some other adjoining areas, would remain in operation at least till March 18 — the next date of hearing in the case.

The Bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu also made clear its intent to examine the catchment area of the lake. As the matter came up for hearing through videoconferencing, the Bench verbally observed that the most important question for determination was: “What was the catchment area and who would be the competent authorities to demarcate such area?”

The High Court, in its March 2 orders, had also declared Sukhna Lake a legal entity and imposed unprecedented costs of Rs200 crore on Punjab and Haryana, relying primarily on the 2004 Survey of India’s Sukhna Lake map.

Taking up four petitions seeking a review of the judgment, the Bench made it clear that today’s order was subject to assurance by the states of Punjab and Haryana that further construction would not be undertaken in the catchment area.

The Bench also made it clear that the stay would stand vacated in case of non-adherence to the assurance. Even renovation work would not be undertaken in the existing structures without the prior permission of the court.

The directions came after the Bench heard Advocate-General (AG) Atul Nanda, Additional AG Rameeza Hakeem and Vikas Mohan Gupta, along with Assistant AG Diya Sodhi, for the state of Punjab; counsel Rajeev Anand and Nikhil Anand for the Kansal Enclave Residents’ Welfare Association; senior advocate Gurminder Singh, along with counsel Gurnoor S Sandhu and RPS Bara for the Kansal Residents’ Protection of Rights and Welfare Association and senior advocate Manjit Singh Khaira along with counsel Surya Prakash and Ripudaman Singh Sidhu for Kansal village residents.

Among other things, the Bench was told that the accuracy of the 2004 map was never finally adjudicated upon by the High Court. The order, dated September 24, 2004, clearly stated that the map was taken on record subject to objections. Rather, the objections raised by Punjab and other parties to the writ proceedings remained open.

The accuracy of the map and the demarcation of the catchment area were called to question by the amicus curiae. The issue was duly recorded by the court vide an order dated December 13, 2011, whereby a committee was constituted to decide on the issue regarding the demarcation.

It was added that the High Court wrongly concluded that the map was accepted in the May 7 committee meeting. On the contrary, the committee categorically and unanimously adopted the position that a fresh map was required in view of the manifest errors. A sub-committee was constituted and entrusted with the demarcation responsibility. These and other issues were duly raised during the proceedings. But the questions were neither dealt with nor considered and determined in a proper manner. The same were crucial to resolve the present controversy.