Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Notification Establishing Greater Mohali Area Development Authority

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the plea challenging the constitutional validity of the notification issued in 2006 under Section 29 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act 1995 (the Act of 1955), constituting and establishing a special Authority under the name of Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA).

The Court rejected the contention that the State was required to elect District Planning Committees as provided under Articles 243 ZD (Committee for District Planning) and 243 ZF (Continuance of existing laws and Municipalities) of the Constitution in accordance with the Punjab District Planning Committees Act, 2005 instead of the creation of GMADA.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said,"Fact is not either averred nor is supported by any prima facie evidence, therebys, the respective creation of PUDA/GMADA respectively in terms of Sections 17 and 29 of the Act of 1995, is deemed to be made, within the contours of the zoning regulations, as become prescribed in the interim developmental plan, as becomes drawn by the authority concerned, in terms of the relevant statutory provisions as borne in the Act of 1995."

The Court also found that the allotment of the sites to the GMADA, for the creation of housing colonies, where the present industrial units are set up is not contrary to the interim developmental plan in terms of the Act of 1995.

The Court opined that there is neither any factual matrix laid nor when any prima facie evidence has come to the forefront, "to bring home any firm conclusion from this Court that there has been any ill intrusion, through the creation of PUDA/GMADA in terms of Sections 17 and 29 of the Act of 1995, onto the indefeasible rights as became vested in the villagers whose lands transit onto the municipal areas concerned."

The bench noted that the constitutional provisions of Article 243 ZD and Article 243 ZF are complementary to the provisions as engrafted in Sections 17 and Section 29 of the Act of 1995 under which GMADA was established, hence "the latter statutory provisions cannot be declared to be unconstitutional, merely on the ground that they are in purported conflict with the constitutional provisions respectively borne in Article 243 ZD and in Article 243 ZF of the Constitution of India."

In light of the above a batch of writ petitions was dismissed.

Title: SWARAN SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. [Along with connected matters]

Click here to read/download the order