TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

No coercive action against restaurant near Siswan Dam: HC

The order will remain in operation at least till February 25 – the next date of hearing in the case
Photo for representational purpose only. iStock

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Acting on a petition filed by a firm running a restaurant near the Siswan Dam, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today directed that coercive action will not be taken against the petitioner.

Advertisement

The order by the Bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri will remain in operation at least till February 25 – the next date of hearing in the case.

Advertisement

In its petition, Siswan Eco Reserve Private Limited through senior advocate Anand Chhibbar with counsel Alankar Narula, Rajinder Goel and Ateevraj Sandhu, contended that the petitioner was running restaurant "Prey" on land classified as "Gair Mumkin Abadi". It was in lawful possession of one of the company's director's family for over 30 years.

The property was consistently recorded as such in the revenue records.

The petitioner also added that it was challenging the show cause notice dated January 29 issued by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA).

Advertisement

It further alleged unauthorised construction on agricultural land and “purported” violations of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, and the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995.

“Without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing, the notice pre-determinedly directs the cessation of operations and mandates demolition within 30 days. This approach by the authorities reflects a clear disregard for due process and the principles of natural justice,” Anand Chhibbar furhter added.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement