Ownership of agricultural land within a control area does not authorise construction without statutory permission.

The petitioners challenged a demolition order dated 13 April 2026 passed under Sections 5, 6 and 11 of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, as amended, directing removal of unauthorized construction over approximately 0.1½ marla forming part of Khasra No. 68//19, Village Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh.

Petitioner No. 1 claimed ownership of agricultural land measuring 2 kanals 2½ marlas and asserted that animal/tin sheds had been constructed for fish farming, poultry and related sale activities, allegedly carried on for several years.

The respondents contended that the land fell within the notified “Control Area”, that no permission for construction or change of land use had been obtained, and that notice under Section 12(2), inquiry and hearing had preceded the demolition order.

The Court observed that the impugned order related only to Petitioner No. 1; no individual demolition orders or substantiated grievances were placed on record for Petitioners No. 2 to 15.

Whether the demolition order dated 13 April 2026, directing removal of structures erected on agricultural land within the “Control Area” without statutory permission, was lawful under the Act of 1952.

Whether the structures and commercial activities were exempt under Section 15 of the Act as buildings or uses “subservient to agriculture”.

Whether the statutory procedure under Section 12(2), including notice, inquiry and opportunity of hearing, was duly followed, or whether the order was vitiated by violation of natural justice.

Whether ownership of the land, electricity connections, livelihood considerations, alleged selective action or a claim for rehabilitation could justify continuation of the unauthorized construction.

The Court applied Sections 5 and 6 of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, which restrict construction and change of land use within the Control Area without requisite permission; Section 11, which regulates use of land; and Section 12(2), which authorises the Deputy Commissioner, after inquiry and an opportunity of hearing, to require restoration of land or removal of unauthorized construction.

Section 15 provides limited exemptions, including buildings for residential purposes or purposes subservient to agriculture in the village abadi area.

Ownership of agricultural land does not, by itself, confer a right to construct or commercially use the land contrary to statutory restrictions.

The Court relied on Bhupinder Singh v. U.T., Chandigarh, CWP-26552-2021, decided on 22 December 2021, for the principle that an activity must have a direct and proximate connection with agricultural operations to qualify as “subservient to agriculture”; a remote or indirect connection is insufficient, and the Section 15 exemption is confined to land situated within the village abadi area.

The right to livelihood under Article 21 is not absolute and cannot protect an activity or structure that is illegal or contrary to statute.

A person cannot claim “negative parity” from alleged inaction against other violators.

The Court held that the petitioners’ own case established that the land was agricultural and situated within the Control Area, while no permission for construction or change of land use had been produced.

The sale deed itself described the property as agricultural land, and the purchase therefore carried constructive knowledge of the statutory restrictions.

The asserted fish, poultry, chicken and meat-market activities were not shown to have a direct and proximate nexus with agricultural operations and the land was not within the village abadi area; consequently, Section 15 did not apply.

Electricity connections, licences, ownership documents and payment of bills could not legalise the structures or validate the commercial use.

The record showed service of a show-cause notice, an inquiry, an opportunity of hearing and a subsequent finding that unauthorized structures continued to exist.

The petitioners identified no specific procedural defect or denial of fair hearing.

Livelihood and rehabilitation arguments could not override the statutory prohibition, particularly where the petitioners had purchased the land with knowledge of its character and restrictions; the action concerned removal of unauthorized structures, not dispossession from the land.

Ownership, livelihood, electricity connections, alleged selective enforcement and the absence of a rehabilitation policy did not confer any right to retain unauthorized structures or conduct unapproved commercial activities on agricultural land within the Control Area.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.