GURUGRAM: Haryana govt has told the Punjab and Haryana high court that many illegal buildings identified in DLF phases 1 to 5 could not be sealed because of legal tangles.
During a hearing on Wednesday, additional advocate-general Ankur Mittal — representing the town and country planning department — highlighted significant enforcement challenges. According to him, many property owners had moved local courts after getting demolition notices from the govt, affecting enforcement on the whole.
He informed the court that DLF areas alone had 227 pending cases in local courts, with stays granted in 167 instances.
The case was initiated in 2021 by the DLF City Residents Welfare Association (RWA), which highlighted large-scale unauthorised constructions and misuse of residential properties for commercial purposes.
During the last hearing on Jan 10, the govt referred to a recent survey conducted by DTCP, highlighting that 4,183 residential properties in DLF areas had been identified for illegal constructions and carrying out commercial activities. According to the report, 83% of these violations were found in economically weaker section (EWS) category plots, measuring 60 square yards each.
The govt had then told the HC that showcause notices and restoration orders would be issued to all these property owners by Jan 31. As part of initial enforcement, occupancy certificates (OCs) of 81 properties in Phase 5 were revoked, and water and sewer connections disconnected, the court was told.
On Wednesday, the bench of Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Vikas Suri expressed strong dissatisfaction over the limited progress in addressing these violations. The court emphasised the severity of the situation, particularly noting the widespread regulatory violations and ineffective enforcement mechanisms.
The court also sought to know if the surveyed illegal structures could be regularised under existing compounding regulations. It scheduled the next hearing for Jan 23 and asked DTCP to submit a detailed response by then.
The verdict in this case could stand as a precedent for owners of other residential buildings running commercial activities from their premises.
Source Homevior.in
