Seven-day ultimatum, missing reasons: CHB demolition notices spark outrage

For many residents, however, the core concern is not only financial liability but what they describe as a virtual ultimatum.

One week’s notice: “Like putting a gun to the head”

Several allottees questioned the seven-day compliance window. What if a resident is travelling? What if an elderly allottee is hospitalised? What if documents need to be consulted or an engineer engaged to verify the alleged violations?

Residents say a week’s time to either arrange lakhs of rupees or dismantle parts of one’s home amounts to coercion rather than compliance. “Seven days is like putting a gun to a person’s head,” said one resident, requesting anonymity.

The issue assumes significance because the matter has a long legal history.

The case began in 2014, when the Ground Floor Residents Welfare Association (Sector 41-A) filed CWP No. 2309 of 2014 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking action against illegal upper-floor constructions that allegedly endangered building safety and demanding proper structural audits.

In 2022, the High Court directed that “proper structural safety is provided to all the units” and that the cost be borne by the allottees on a pro rata basis, “as per the extent of the violation made”, with costs assessed as per scheduled rates.

However, residents argue that the present notices fall short of another critical legal requirement: that administrative orders affecting rights must be reasoned.

Where are the reasons?

The High Court had emphasised that action must be based on proper assessment. Yet many notices accessed by residents merely state that violations have been found and assign a lump-sum estimated cost. They do not, residents say, clearly list the specific structural breaches in each unit, nor explain how the amount has been computed.

If an order must be “reasoned”, lawyers point out, it must disclose the precise violation: Was a load-bearing wall removed? Was an unauthorised third floor constructed? Was a balcony illegally extended? On what date was the inspection conducted? Who inspected the premises? Is there a structural stability report on record?

Without such particulars, affected residents argue, they are left guessing what exactly they are accused of and how to contest it.

Inspection records under question

CHB Chief Executive Officer Pardeep Kumar said notices were issued after inspection teams assessed the properties and found violations, and that estimated costs were calculated accordingly. He added that residents could either remove the violations themselves or deposit the amount for CHB to carry out demolition.

But residents are now asking: when were these inspections conducted? Were they videographed? Were owners present? Is there a documented structural audit report for each flat?

Housing Board officials maintain that the exercise is safety-driven and linked to court-mandated structural audits. The variation in amounts, they say, reflects the scale and nature of violations found.

Ward No. 34 councillor Gurpreet Singh Gabi said he stood with residents and called for relief measures. “We will not let people’s homes be demolished; we stand with them. These houses have been built with hard work. The changes made are need-based. We should wait for the committee formed by the CHB. A Delhi-based one-time settlement should be implemented. People are even ready to pay so that their homes are not broken. The Housing Board should think like a mother who never wishes harm to anyone,” he said.

Ward No. 27 councillor Gurbax Rawat said she had been approached by a resident in Sector 39 regarding the notice and would raise the matter with the concerned authorities.

While few dispute that structural safety must be ensured, residents insist that enforcement must be accompanied by reasons after documented inspections and a fair opportunity to respond.