HC stays operation of contentious provisions of Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025
The court directed that violations which were treated as violations under previous rules and regulations 'be not regularised' meanwhile
Putting on hold the implementation of disputed provisions of the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday ordered that clauses inconsistent with earlier building rules and regulations shall remain in abeyance. The court further directed that violations which were treated as violations under the previous rules and regulations 'be not regularised' meanwhile.
Issuing notice of motion for March 13, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Parmod Goyal passed the interim order on a petition filed by two residents Harbinder Singh Sekhon, and Jasinder Sekhon, 61. They had challenged the notification dated December 15 issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Government of Punjab.
“In the meantime, the operation of those provisions of the notification dated December 15, which are inconsistent with the earlier Rules and Regulations, be kept in abeyance and violations, which were qualified as violations under the previous Rules and Regulations, be not regularised,” the Bench directed.
The petitioners assailed the notification on the ground that the newly notified Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025, were inconsistent with existing laws, including the Punjab Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 2004, and the National Building Code of India, 2016.
Senior Advocate R S Bains, appearing for the petitioners along with counsel Shehbaz Thind and Sultan Singh, contended that the rules were framed pursuant to the constitution of a Real Estate Advisory Committee that “mainly comprises of private developers, colonisers and promoters, who have vested business interests and have, thus, ignored the public interest.”
Drawing the court’s attention to specific provisions, counsel argued that the rules permitted construction up to stilt plus four floors even on residential plots situated along 40-feet-wide roads. He also pointed out that in certain cases the rules allowed ground coverage up to 100 per cent for commercial buildings in core areas and extended an option to owners of plots abutting roads of 60 feet or more to opt for construction.
According to the petitioners, such provisions would lead to 'haphazard raising of buildings' and cause chaos through avoidable densification of residential areas. It was further submitted that residents were not taken into confidence while framing the rules.
The petitioners maintained that such drastic changes could be contemplated for areas proposed to be developed in the future, but not for already developed localities where residents had raised constructions in accordance with the existing rules and bye-laws.
Taking note of the submissions, the Bench passed the interim protective directions while fixing the matter for further hearing.
