HC notice to Haryana on ‘illegal’ stilt+4 construction

Advertisement

Chandigarh, July 11

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has put the State of Haryana on notice on a petition contending, among other things, that constructing stilt-plus-four structures entailed huge profits for a businessman, but neighbours could not be made to suffer for such business activity.

Panchkula resident Neeraj Gupta and another petitioner contended that the policy of stilt-plus-four was notified in 2019 without any modification in the Haryana Building Code. This notification had been given effect to by executive action and not by legislative process. Proper mechanism was not put in place by the official respondents.

“The National Building Code was diluted by the executive and the 2019 policy was implemented to accommodate the builders and investors without proper scientific studies on the impact, particularly in the existing sectors where the adjoining buildings have foundations that are over 20-30 years old. The Haryana Apartment Act was not amended and stilt-plus-four was permitted by executive action,” the petitioners submitted.

Appearing before the Bench of Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, the petitioners contended that a respondent-IRS officer was raising construction adjoining their house on a 10-marla plot in Sector 12-A, Panchkula, in view of the earlier policy, whereby stilt-plus-four was permitted, “causing immense damage to him”. Appearing in person, the petitioner pointed out that cracks had developed in his home.

Seeking the issuance of directions to the respondents to take strict and immediate action against the respondent for raising an illegal construction without compliance of the relevant building codes, the petitioners added that they were living under continuous fear that their weakened house structure could fall anytime.

The petitioners said they came to know in 2020-2021 that the adjacent plot on which an old single-storey structure was existing had been purchased by a new owner, who had demolished the old structure and started digging the basement and foundation alongside the common wall with the help of JCB machines.

They raised their objections that it would be dangerous to their building if the existing foundations were disturbed. It was further contended that there was extensive damage to their house/building due to negligent and illegal construction. Taking up the matter, the Bench issued notice of motion for July 13. Accepting the notice, a state counsel submitted that both the buildings would be examined and report submitted.