HC questions Punjab on ‘delisted’ forest land, commercial activity on Mohali resort

“It is a PIL. It is our baby, not yours. The moment you file it, it becomes our baby. We will deal with it,” a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said.

The bench reiterated that the issue of maintainability would remain open and decided later, but that would not prevent the court from examining potential forest encroachment. The bench also recalled its earlier order of September 2, in which it had emphasised that its concern was “limited to whether any forest area, reserved forest area, sanctuary or national park meant only for forest activity is being encroached upon by the construction in question or not.”

Forest Dept claims land was delisted

The Punjab Government counsel submitted that the resort stands on land formally delisted from forest classification through a 2011 notification and supported by maps, annexures, and a report from the divisional forest officer.

He read out portions of the notification showing that the Centre had granted “in-principle approval to delist” PLPA-closed land for bona fide agricultural and habitation purposes, subject to strict conditions.

However, the bench pressed the officer to point out precisely where the notification “says this area has been delisted.” Turning to the maps, the court scrutinised the colour-coded demarcation, yellow marking delisted areas and green marking listed forest areas, and asked repeatedly whether the resort fell squarely within the delisted polygon.

When the state said yes, the Chief Justice Nagu asked: “Subject to certain conditions, what are those conditions? Please read them.” The court then had the state read aloud the three key conditions attached to delisting, including that “no commercial activity is permitted on such delisted land” and that the land may be used “only for bona fide agriculture and livelihood.”

“That is the real issue then,” Chief Justice Nagu remarked, directing the Forest Department to file a complete affidavit with maps, as earlier ordered.

‘This roving inquiry has to stop’

Appearing for the resort, Senior Advocate Deepinder Singh Patwalja told the court that the establishment had been forcibly shut down as it could not function while multiple compliances were being sought simultaneously from the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), the Punjab Pollution Control Board, and the Forest Department.

“I cannot run today because I am shut till I get all compliances… This roving inquiry has to stop,” the counsel argued, alleging “proxy litigation” by private parties.

Countering allegations of vested interests, petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Kanwaljit Singh, said, “There is not even one suit or case against him. A partition matter between co-sharers exists, nothing to do with him.” He took the court through pages of the notification to argue that the delisting applied only under conditional approval and that the specific land remained subject to restrictions prohibiting commercial activity.

“This land was under forest land… and even after delisting, commercial activity is barred,” he submitted.

Patwalja further alleged that GMADA was singling out his property even though many other commercial properties were flourishing in the area. To this, GMADA counsel Shekhar Verma said they had issued similar notices to 14 properties, and that part of the Prey result was on agricultural land, no commercial activity can be permitted on that khasra number. He claimed that GMADA’s objection was only to commercial activities being carried on farming land.

Reiterating its earlier direction, the Punjab and Haryana High Court bench ordered that forest functionaries place a proper affidavit along with all maps and notifications to establish whether the resort stands on delisted land, and, crucially, whether commercial activity is permissible. The bench will continue hearing the matter in December.