Issuing notice to the Punjab government on the petitioner’s request for impleading Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal as party in the case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered continuance of a stay till July 1 on construction of the 100-foot road, on the petitioner’s land, leading to the upcoming Metro Eco Green Resorts in SAS Nagar. The resort is owned by Sukhbir Singh Badal and his wife, Union Minister Harsimrat Kaur.
A Division Bench comprising Justices AK Mittal and Rekha Mittal was hearing the case on Friday. The petitioner informed the court that from the government authorities’ reply filed on May 27, it transpires that objections under Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, have been decided by the deputy CM, who has a large number of shares in the resort. It is a matter of record that even the social impact assessment report was approved at the level of the deputy CM, it was added. Hence, the petitioner pleaded that Sukhbir be impleaded as party in the case.
- Harsimrat Kaur Badal demands Arvind Kejriwal to sack Sukhpal Singh Khaira for Sikh referendum remarks
- Parkash Singh Badal advice to Amit Shah: Dispel insecurity among minorities
- Road to Badals’ resort: Govt opposes plea impleading Deputy CM in land acquisition
- Road to resort: HC notice to CM Parkash Singh Badal
- Why the hurry in laying road to Badal resort, asks HC
- GMADA to High Court, CM Parkash Singh Badal chaired meeting which cleared road to resort
The Indian Express had first reported on May 19 about the road construction from Majra T-junction (Chandigarh-Kurali-Siswan T-junction) to Palanpur in Kharar tehsil of SAS Nagar district, leading to the resorts. However, V N Zade, special secretary of department of housing and urban development, in his reply informed the court that the petitioner’s request to implead the CM and others as party in the case was illegal since she had now made such allegations in her subsequent application, which are not part of her main petition.
The officer submitted that the petitioner has submitted “vague and fanciful allegations” without proper verification and her land has been acquired for “public purpose”.
The case will come up for hearing on July 1.