MANOJa

Chandigarh: Making it clear that “visions do not make laws”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today tested the “bonafides” of the petitioner who has challenged the much-debated Tata Camelot housing project coming up in Kansal. The High Court also questioned D S Patwalia, counsel for the petitioner, Aalok Jagga as to why the scope of the petition has been narrowed down to Punjab and why the violations done by Haryana in the periphery have not been objected to.

Observing that the petitioner is “skating on thin ice”, the division bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Mahesh Grover questioned what the “illegality” is in the proposed Camelot project construction. The Bench today asked Patwalia to demonstrate how the housing project has violated the law. The observation “visions do not make laws” was made by the Bench responding to the petitioner’s averment that the proposed housing project is contrary to the vision of the city envisaged by Le Corbusier.

The development took place during the resumed hearing of the PIL today. Peeved over the delay caused by the UT Administration in filing its response (after over 14 months) and causing delay in the adjudication of the PIL, the Bench imposed an exemplary penalty of Rs 50,000 on the Administration. The penalty will be paid by the Administration to Hash Builders and Tata Housing.

Also, the Bench has made it clear that on the next date of hearing (February 14), the case will be heard for final arguments. The parties involved have been directed to file their responses by February 9. Asking the petitioner to demonstrate whether any law has been violated, the division bench remarked that the case cannot be filed on the basis of “individual likes and dislikes”.

“If there is any violation, show us the violation,” added Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Speaking for the Bench, Justice Mahesh Grover remarked that violations have been done not only by Punjab and Haryana but also by Chandigarh. “Even though it is assumed that your case is accepted, at the most permission is required by the developer for the construction,” the Bench remarked, which also questioned the counsel if there “is any absolute embargo on the construction”. “We do not see why have you taken 1,000 pages to raise this issue. Everything hinges on the clearance to be given,” the Bench quipped.

Renowned lawyer and Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi, counsel for Tata Housing, argued that the petitioner does not possess even a single document to challenge the housing project. “It is at a premature stage. The Ministry of Environment and Forests is feeling fettered and not entertaining the application of the builder because of the stay prevailing,” contended Singhvi.

He demanded a vacation of the stay granted by the High Court (on January 20, 2011) and disposal of the PIL. However, the Bench adjourned the case to February 14 for final adjudication.


Where has Tata Housing (Camelot) project ‘violated law’, HC asks petitioner

MANOJa

Intensifying its scathing attack against the Punjab government for allowing Tata Camelot to come up in a “controlled area”, the Administration today accused Punjab of preparing the master plan of Nayagaon keeping the Tata Camelot project in mind. Senior standing counsel for UT Administration, Sanjay Kaushal alleged that the Punjab government buckled under the pressure of it’s MLAs to prepare the master plan of Nayagaon to benefit Tata housing corporation. “The master plan for Nayagaon was not made for its residents but was made keeping the project (Camelot) in mind,” Kaushal averred.
The allegation was made during the resumed hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Aalok Jagga challenging the housing project to come up in Kansal. On a pointed query put by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Mahesh Grover as to whether the Chandigarh Administration was “helpless” when the master plan was made, Kaushal replied in the affirmative.

The “helplessness” of Administration was, however, questioned by the division bench. The Bench questioned Kaushal what the “champions of Edict” of Chandigarh were doing when the land belonging to MLAs was transferred for construction of the project. The Administration counsel added that as per the master plan, no high-rise building is allowed to come up within one km of the Capitol Complex. Kaushal alleged that since Punjab knew that the Tata Camelot project is located within 1.9 km of the Capitol Complex, it kept the embargo on construction of high rise building at 1 km. The master plan for Nayagaon was notified on January 2, 2009.

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Mahesh Grover questioned why the UT Administration never raked the issues of threat to heritage of the city before the Court. Justice Grover remarked that the Court has been given the impression that the authorities have abdicated their responsibilities. The Court also asked whether any construction other than the old building of the High Court is not a “blatant violation”. Referring to the vision of French architect Le Corbusier, heavily relied upon by the Administration, Justice Grover questioned “where was the vision at that time” to construction the new building of High Court.

Sanjay Kaushal submitted that it was highly “unfortunate” that Punjab and Haryana are jointly trying to destroy their “jewel” (Chandigarh). He said that despite the development by Punjab and Haryana had not received a green signal from the co ordination committee (comprising of members of UT, Punjab and Haryana).

He added, “Heritage knows no boundaries. Punjab and Haryana should protect Chandigarh for the next generation.” Responding to this, the Bench orally remarked that “heritage cannot be made the foundation of a judicial order”.

Using his wit, Congress spokesperson and senior lawyer, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing on behalf of Tata Housing development company launched a counter attack on the petitioner for filing a “premature” petition. Taking a dig at the “bleeding hearts” of those who have challenged Camelot, Singhvi said that without preparing the master plan for the city, the UT Administration cannot collaterally challenge the master plan of Nayagaon. He questioned why the Chandigarh Administration did not challenge the master plan of Nayagaon and that malafide cannot be alleged against a statute. Singhvi said that the master plan is a statute and that the co ordination committee has no legal sanctity. He contended that the present petition is an attempt to get some observations from the Court on the project. He added that the petition is a “deliberate attempt to make the Court a licence issuing authority”. The PIL will come up for resumed hearing on Wednesday.



Tata Camelot 'benefitted' from MLAs?

MANOJa

Chandigarh: High Court says Periphery Control Act applicable to housing project, ‘vision of one (Mon Le Corbusier) must not be pitted against myopia of multitudes’


The Punjab and Haryana High Court left the decision on the controversial Tata Camelot project on the concerned authorities, from whom the project is required to get necessary sanctions, permissions and clearances, under the Wildlife (Protection) Act and Environment (Protection) Act. While disposing of a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the “permissibility of the project” proposed to be set up by Tata in Chandigarh’s periphery, the division bench of the High Court, comprising of Chief Justice, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Mahesh Grover, held that the Periphery Control Act is applicable to the housing project; but “only on the fulfillment of the clearances, sanctions, permissions and other pre-conditions required under the Environment (Protection) Act and Wildlife (Protection) Act”.

The division bench held that the project shall have to invoke the jurisdiction of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and Environment (Protection) Act, and after fulfillment of all the required formalities, the project can make any further progress so as to avoid a situation where “the vision of one (Mon Le Corbusier) is pitted against the myopia of the multitudes”.

On the question of whether the project violates the edict of Chandigarh, the Court ruled, “Viewed from the strict dictionary meaning of the word edict, ie a decree issued by the sovereign or other authority or any authoritative proclamation or command, the words of Mon Le Corbusier may not amount to an edict at all. It is in the nature of a formal wish of a person that the future generations would continue to preserve what has been built”.

Further, referring to various authorities, which are required to give clearances to the project, the High Court ruled, “A more rigorous regulated development in what are now the remnants of the periphery and the areas adjoining it is the need of the hour for which the stakeholders, ie the Administration of Chandigarh, the States of Punjab and Haryana as also the authorities under the Environment (Protection) Act and the Wild Life Protection Act, have to demonstrate the need to engage themselves intensively and not acquire a placid approach indicating an eloquent acquiescence to the violation of the 1995 Act, Periphery Control Act and the Periphery Policy.”

The petitioner Aalok Jagga, a local advocate, had challenged the permissibility of the project and even contended in the PIL that the housing project, which is proposed to come up in the Sukhna Lake catchment area, requires clearance under the Wildlife (Protection) Act which had already been refused to the project. The promoters of the project had sought a review of the refusal, which is still pending.

The promoters had raised contentions that the Periphery Control Act is not applicable to the project while the petitioner has pleaded that the Act is applicable. Admitting the contentions raised by the petitioner, the HC has ruled that the Periphery Control Act is applicable to the project but the promoters of the project shall have to apply for the required clearances, permissions under the relevant provisions to carry on with the project.

Commenting on the order, a Tata Housing Development Company spokesperson said, “We welcome the decision by the Court which has been taken in the best interest of society at large. We assure that the manner in which the project has been planned will make it another architectural marvel. The project is conceptualised as a Green Development — to be in total harmony with the environment. The project will proceed further after securing necessary permissions from the appropriate authorities.”




‘Tata Camelot can proceed after nod under various Acts’

MANOJa

Jolt for Tata’s Camelot project, others as court moves to save Chandigarh’s skyline

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 14

Tata Camelot’s ambitious plan to raise skyscrapers in the vicinity of Sukhna Lake has run into another legal hurdle. Taking up the Save Sukhna case, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court today directed Punjab, Haryana and the Chandigarh Administration to not just stop construction activity in the lake’s catchment area, but also demolish, without notice, any construction being carried out against the high court mandate.

“We direct Punjab and Haryana as well as the Chandigarh Administration to put their enforcement agencies in action and construction activities going on in the catchment area as per the map of the Survey of India should be stopped immediately; and any construction raised in violation of the directions issued by the court be demolished without issuing any notice,” the Bench of Acting Chief Justice MM Kumar and Justice Alok Singh ruled. The development is significant as the Survey of India map says Camelot project is in the catchment area.

The high court has already taken on record the map prepared by the Survey of India defining the catchment area falling in Punjab, Chandigarh and Haryana. As per the map, villages of Kaimbwala and Khuda Alisher in Chandigarh, Nayagaon and part of Kansal in Punjab and parts of Saketri and Mahadevpur in Haryana form part of the catchment area. The Camelot site, located in Kansal village, falls in the Sukhna catchment area.

Otherwise also, amicus curiae or friend of the court Tanu Bedi has all along been insisting that Tata Camelot housing project would affect the fragile catchment area of the lake.

Going into the background of the controversy, the Bench asserted: “In the order dated March 14, 2011, directions were issued to restore the old glory of the lake by observing that no housing colony or building activity took place in the catchment area, either within the forest area or agriculture area. We have been apprised that despite the direction, construction activities are going on….

“Both the states, as well as the UT, shall submit their report with regard to the violation of the directions issued in the order dated March 14 last year and the action taken against the violators”.

The Bench asserted that the minutes of a meeting on the Save Sukhna issue reveal that the Survey of India map has been accepted in principle by the UT Administration.

But Punjab has adopted an “unacceptable attitude and is still making submissions that the map is unacceptable”.

The Bench added the state had endorsed the authenticity of the map during the proceedings of another petition. “Now, it cannot go back on the stand taken,” the Bench ruled.

The Bench further observed that it did not feel the necessity of experts’ sub-committee to prepare a fresh map. “The Administration shall give wide publicity to the catchment areas as depicted in the map prepared by the Survey of India and adopted by the UT Administration as the map of the catchment area so that the general public is made aware that no construction is permitted in the area," the Bench concluded.

What the Court said

We direct the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as the Chandigarh Administration to put their enforcement agencies in action and construction activities going on in the catchment area as per the Survey of India map should be stopped immediately; and any construction raised in violation of the directions issued by the court be demolished without issuing any notice — HC Bench

The catchment area

- A Survey of India map says the Tata Camelot project site in Kansal village lies in the catchment area of Sukhna Lake

- The HC has already taken on record the map defining the catchment area falling in Punjab, Chandigarh and Haryana

- As per the map, villages of Kaimbwala and Khuda Alisher in Chandigarh, Nayagaon and part of Kansal in Punjab and parts of Saketri and Mahadevpur in Haryana are in the catchment area



The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Main News

Indigill

Once termed as a golden project now bitting the dust. A friend of mine whose father was an MLA and has stake in this has been waiting for this project completition for ages. He has now become sick and tired of evaluating it on day to day basis. Feel sorry for him but it goes on to prove no one is above the law of the land.