Lawyer move HC, seeks panel for removing encroachments
Advocate SKS.Bedi on Saturday filed an application in the Punjab and Haryana high court seeking a panel committee for removal of encroachments from the Ambala Sadar area.chandigarh Updated: Apr 20, 2013 20:50 IST
Advocate SKS.Bedi on Saturday filed an application in the Punjab and Haryana high court seeking a panel committee for removal of encroachments from the Ambala Sadar area.
In the public interest petition (PIL) moved in 2011 and decided on February 13, 2012, Bedi, who had filed the petition in person, had sought removal of encroachments and illegal constructions on government land, road berms and class 'C' land whether made by residents or by the municipal corporation in contravention to the zoning plan of civil area of Ambala Cantt now known as Ambala Sadar.
The advocate had sought directions against the authorities not to allow use of premises except as notified in the General Land Register (GLR) and zoning plan with respect to the properties situated in the excised area as detailed in GOI notification of February 5, 1977.
The petition had sought fixing responsibility on officials who have connived with encroachers and allowed the change of use of buildings in contravention to the zoning plan.
While disposing the PIL, the double bench of then chief justice Ranjan Gogoi and justice Mahesh Grover had observed that "the MC has also admitted that certain encroachments stand identified, adding that as far as these encroachments are concerned, there should be no impediment in removing them and the MC in the garb of identifying the structures should not hesitate to remove them".
The court had given liberty to the petitioner to approach the court again if encroachments were not removed within four months.
In the application, the petitioner asserted that he had several meetings with the MC officials and had given representations to them containing HC orders but the encroachments were not removed.
The application read that the constitution of committee under the HC supervision was necessary, pointing out that the respondents have no political will to remove encroachments, adding that they have no fear of law and moving for contempt of court was the other option.