Creation of PUDA & GMADA constitutional, rules High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, which led to the establishment of the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) and the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA). Rejecting challenges raised via a bunch of petitions, a Division Bench declared the impugned notifications valid and ruled that the creation of these authorities did not breach Articles 243 ZD and 243 ZF of the Constitution.

Advertisement

In one of the pleas before the Bench, a petitioner operating a small-scale industry at Balongi village since 1990 faced allegations in 2012 when a local resident claimed that the factory’s operations caused structural damage to his property. Acting on his representation, the court directed the authorities to examine the matter, leading to an order by GMADA’s Chief Administrator to shut down the industrial unit. Acting on a plea challenging the order, the High Court noted that Balongi had been notified as a “mixed use zone” under the statutory master plan, restricting industrial activities in the area. The court further directed GMADA to issue a show-cause notice, which culminated in the closure order.

The petitioners contended that the Act and the subsequent development plans were unconstitutional and violated their rights under Articles 14 and 19. They argued that the master plan was illegal, alleging this had not been approved by a competent authority. They further challenged the validity of the notifications under Sections 17 and 29, claiming these infringed the constitutional provisions for District Planning Committees under Article 243 ZD.

Dismissing the arguments, Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed that Articles 243 ZD and 243 ZF were supplementary provisions and did not restrict the state legislature from creating statutory bodies like PUDA and GMADA. The Bench asserted that the constitutional purpose of establishing district planning committees — to ensure sustainable development during the transition of panchayat land to urban domains — was not undermined.

The Bench further clarified that no evidence was presented to show that villagers’ vested rights in land transitioned to municipal areas had been violated. It held that any disputes regarding the rights of industrial units or land usage were contentious issues requiring adjudication in civil courts, not via writ proceedings.

The High Court ruled that the creation of zoning regulations and interim development plans by PUDA and GMADA was within the statutory framework of the 1995 Act. It affirmed that these plans ensured sustainable urban development without infringing upon villagers’ rights or existing zoning laws.

The Bench concluded that the allotments for housing colonies and the actions undertaken by PUDA and GMADA complied with the law. The petitioners’ industrial units, located in zones earmarked for residential development, could not claim regularisation or exemption from the Act’s provisions. The court reiterated the validity of the Act and the authorities created under it, dismissing the petitions as devoid of merit.