Illegal construction in Siswan HC rejects GMADA affidavit on forest land violations, imposes Rs 25,000 cost

Earlier, the Forest Department had informed the court that there were 182 defaulters across the SAS Nagar district, whereas GMADA’s initial reply had mentioned only 28 violators in Siswan village. After the court flagged inconsistencies, GMADA filed a subsequent affidavit stating that a survey had identified 193 unauthorised constructions and that action under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 and the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, had been initiated.

However, the counsel for the petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with the affidavit and the “action taken report”, noting that it did not disclose critical details such as when notices were issued, what follow-up action was taken, whether interim protection had been granted in statutory appeals, and whether violators were allowed to continue commercial activities. The court was also told that in some cases, notices had been issued years ago without effective enforcement, while in others they were issued only after the court’s intervention.

The bench observed that the affidavit was non-speaking and failed to give a complete picture of enforcement against illegal constructions, despite the court’s earlier directions to place on record a detailed status report. The court also questioned why GMADA had relied on contempt proceedings and past orders without clarifying their relevance to the present proceedings.

The bench directed GMADA to file a fresh affidavit with full particulars, including details of notices, action taken, pending appeals, and timelines, and warned that authorities must come clean when dealing with forest land and environmental violations.

The matter has been listed for further hearing next week.

Reasons cited for rejecting GMADA’s affidavit

*Contradictory figures on the number of violators, with GMADA initially reporting 28 defaulters and later acknowledging 193 after the Forest Department disclosed 182 defaulters across the district.

*Failure to disclose dates of issuance of notices, the nature of violations, and the stage of proceedings against each violator.

*Lack of clarity on whether appeals were pending, whether interim orders were operating, and whether commercial activities continued despite prohibitory orders.

*An evasive and non-speaking status report that did not comply with the court’s direction to file a comprehensive affidavit.

*Apparent selective enforcement, with some establishments allegedly shut down swiftly while others continued despite long-pending notices.

*Reliance on unrelated contempt proceedings and past orders without explaining their relevance to the present matter.