Farmhouse owners flay govt action | gurgaon | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jun 24, 2017-Saturday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Farmhouse owners flay govt action

A day after nine farmhouses at Ansal's Aravali Retreat were demolished, the property owners and developer of the township accused the Haryana government of misinterpreting a Supreme Court ruling that aimed at checking illegal mining in the Aravali hills.

gurgaon Updated: Apr 16, 2012 00:40 IST
HT Correspondent

A day after nine farmhouses at Ansal's Aravali Retreat were demolished, the property owners and developer of the township accused the Haryana government of misinterpreting a Supreme Court ruling that aimed at checking illegal mining in the Aravali hills.

They also said that the district administration clearly acted against a ministry of environment and forest letter saying that the Aavali Retreat area was not covered by the 1992 notification issued by it.

The developer, Ansal API, said that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had granted a stay against demolition of farmhouses in 2007 and the matter was sub-judice.

Aravali Retreat Plot Owners Association (ARPAN) held an emergency meeting on Sunday and said that the government acted deliberately two days before the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) review meeting in Delhi.

The CEC, appointed by the Supreme Court, had recently visited the Gurgaon and Mewat regions to take first-hand account of the mining situation in the Aravalis falling in these areas.

ARPAN president Arvinder S Barara said the government agencies were misinterpreting the apex court ruling that primarily aimed at checking illegal mining in the Aravali hills, and not the farmhouses.

"After receiving all the clearances regarding building plans and others formalities from the concerned state government departments, we not only safeguarded the plantation but added more greenery to the area on Aravali," he said

The principal chief conservator of forests filed an affidavit in another case in the high court, confirming that the 1,200 acres township did not come under the Land Preservation Act.