Thursday, December 13, 2018
facebook

google plus
Chandigarh

Posted at: Dec 7, 2018, 1:57 AM; last updated: Dec 7, 2018, 1:57 AM (IST)

Remove encroachments from front of houses: HC

Says greenery can’t be maintained at cost of parking space

What Bench said

  • Taking up the matter, Justice Amol Rattan Singh asserted that his house was in Sector 19 and there was a nice green area in front of it. It appealed to the eyes. Yet, it was not acceptable, if it was causing parking problems.
  • Responding to a query by Justice Amol Rattan Singh on the time period required for the purpose of removing the encroachment, the Bench was told that the drive would be initiated from Sector 19 and a month’s time was required for the purpose.

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 6

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today reiterated its earlier directions on the removal of encroachments in front of houses in the name of greenery.

Taking up the matter, Justice Amol Rattan Singh asserted that his house was in Sector 19 and there was a nice green area in front of it. It appealed to the eyes. Yet, it was not acceptable, if it was causing parking problems.

The assertion came during the hearing of a traffic regulation case. Taking up the matter, Justice Amol Rattan Singh said greenery could not be maintained at the cost of parking space and encroachments in the name of green areas were required to be removed.

Responding to a query by Justice Amol Rattan Singh on the time period required for the purpose of removing the encroachment, the Bench was told that the drive would be initiated from Sector 19 and a month’s time was required for the purpose.

Expressing dissatisfaction, the Bench said the city had 55 sectors and as many months would be required for removing the encroachments, which was not acceptable. The Bench also called for a progress report in the matter and asked the Municipal Commissioner and the Estate Officer to ensure that encroachments were removed from front of houses and institutions so that the area encroached upon in the name of greenery was available for parking.

The Bench, during the course of the hearing, was also told that the parking policy was being put in place. It was added that about 198 objections had so far been received. As such, some time was required. The police, meanwhile, were required to be asked not to act too tough.

The Bench also made it clear that the residents were required to intimate and take permission from the Residents Welfare Association in case there was a function at someone’s place and vehicles were required to be parked in large numbers by the guests. The Bench added that the permission would be granted for a specific time.

The Bench also clarified that vehicles could be parked on the space between the boundary wall of the house and the footpath, but not on the pathway. The assertion came after the Bench was told that the people were confused where and where not to park.

Rapping the Chandigarh Traffic Police for “sheer callousness”, the Bench, during a previous date of hearing, had made it clear that it would issue contempt notice for repeated non-compliance of its directions on removal of vehicles parked on pedestrian pathways.

Justice Amol Rattan Singh had also observed that the parking policy was said to be pending with the Deputy Commissioner for a year.

Justice Amol Rattan Singh had asserted that not even a semblance of adequate action being taken was visible, despite directions to the Senior Superintendent of Police (Traffic and Security) that vehicles parked on the pedestrian pathways should be towed away, or clamped down or proceeded against by way of registration of a criminal case under Section 336 (an act endangering the life or personal safety of others) of the IPC.

COMMENTS

All readers are invited to post comments responsibly. Any messages with foul language or inciting hatred will be deleted. Comments with all capital letters will also be deleted. Readers are encouraged to flag the comments they feel are inappropriate.
The views expressed in the Comments section are of the individuals writing the post. The Tribune does not endorse or support the views in these posts in any manner.
Share On