The Punjab and Haryana High Court has backed a demolition order for structures built on agricultural land in Manimajra village, Chandigarh. The court made it clear that owning agricultural land does not give a person the right to raise unauthorised construction on it.
The division bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Pravindra Singh Chauhan gave this ruling while dismissing a writ petition filed by landowners. The landowners were challenging the demolition order concerning structures raised on their agricultural land.
Why the High Court Rejected the Landowners' Argument
The petitioners argued that since they owned the land in question, they had the right to use it as they wished. The court did not accept this reasoning.
The bench held that land ownership comes with legal duties. If a person wants to change the use of agricultural land or build on it, they must obtain the permissions required under law. Without those permissions, any construction is unauthorised.
The court also addressed the livelihood argument raised by the petitioners. It ruled that the right to livelihood, however sympathetically it may be viewed, cannot be used as a licence to violate statutory provisions. Those provisions exist to preserve Chandigarh's planned cityscape.
What This Means for Chandigarh's Planned Character
Chandigarh is known for its planned layout, and the court's ruling directly links the demolition order to protecting that plan. The bench made it clear that statutory rules meant to preserve the city's design cannot be set aside simply because someone owns the land or depends on it for income.
To put it plainly, the court has drawn a clear line: sympathy for a person's livelihood cannot override the law. If construction violates the rules that protect Chandigarh's planned character, it can be demolished.
Our Take: A Necessary Check on Unauthorised Construction
In our view, this ruling sends a strong and much-needed message. Land ownership is not the same as unlimited building rights. Every city has rules about how land can be used, and those rules exist for a reason — especially in a city like Chandigarh, whose identity is built on careful planning.
The livelihood argument is understandable. People depend on their land for income, and demolition is a serious matter. But if livelihood alone could excuse illegal construction, then every building rule in the city would become meaningless. Anyone could build anything and simply claim they needed the money.
What readers should take away from this case is simple: before building on agricultural land or changing its use, get the required permissions. The court has made it clear that no amount of sympathy will protect unauthorised construction. For Chandigarh residents, this is a reminder that the city's planned character is not just a design choice — it is protected by law.