Chandigarh: Both Punjab and Haryana want to enjoy all the benefits of joint capital Chandigarh but none of the two wants to contribute for its development, the Punjab and Haryana high court said on Monday during the resumed hearing of the case related to Sukhna Lake and its catchment area.
Various residents of Kansal have moved the court for a stay on demolition notices issued by the Punjab government. However, no relief to make alternative arrangement was granted. The court adjourned the matter till December 5.
The UT submitted its status report and said no construction activity is allowed in Sukhna catchment area. It also stated that it comes under the eco-sensitive zone and the administration is abiding with all the rules and regulations.
Punjab submitted that no construction activity is being allowed in the catchment area from its side. It was stated that the Punjab government, in its letter to the Union ministry of environment and forests (MoEF), had said that in 2013 that it was decided that eco-sensitive zone (areas falling within Punjab) around Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary should be 100 metres from the boundary. But the court pointed out that while deciding the Tata Camelot project appeal, the Supreme Court had turned down this plea of Punjab. On this, the counsel for Punjab said the state government has not received any such notification from the MoEF yet. The high court then said the apex court judgment itself is the notification and is binding on all.
The court observed that Punjab and Haryana are not keen on UT and time and again directions have been issued to both states to have joint meetings to discuss the issues.
The counsel for Haryana said no construction activity is going on in Sukhna catchment area from its side. The counsel said Haryana is assuring that no sewage water enters Sukhna from Saketri side and work for a sewage treatment plant has started.
The counsel for Kansal residents said random notices of demolition were sent to around 70 to 80 people without conducting any survey. The Punjab counsel said notices were issued to those who had carried out construction without any sanction. The petitioner's counsel said the actual issue was not construction at Sukhna catchment area but beautification and regular flow of water at Sukhna. The court then said, "It's not you who will decide the issue, the court will decide the real issue."