Court says ownership, electricity connection and livelihood claims cannot protect unauthorized fish, poultry and meat market built on agricultural land in Control Area
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a demolition order passed against unauthorized construction raised on agricultural land in village Manimajra, Chandigarh, holding that mere ownership of land does not permit construction or commercial use without statutory approval.
A Division Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Pravindra Singh Chauhan upheld the order dated 13 April 2026, passed under the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, directing removal of structures raised on land in Khasra No. 68//19. The petitioners had claimed that they were engaged in fish farming and poultry business for decades and had constructed animal sheds and tin sheds for their livelihood. They also argued that they had electricity connections, had paid bills regularly, and had purchased the land through sale documents.
Rejecting these arguments, the Court noted that the land was admittedly agricultural and fell within the Control Area. The sale deed itself described the property as agricultural land, and the petitioners had not obtained any permission for change of land use or for raising construction under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. The Bench observed that a purchaser cannot claim a better title or greater rights than what the land legally carried at the time of purchase.
The Court also held that electricity meters and payment of bills do not confer any right, title or interest in land, nor do they validate unauthorized construction. On the petitioners’ plea of violation of natural justice, the Bench found that a show cause notice had been issued, inquiry had been conducted, and an opportunity of hearing had been given. Since the petitioners failed to point out any specific procedural defect, the Court said the demolition order could not be faulted.
The judgment further rejected the argument that the demolition would violate the petitioners’ right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that the right to livelihood is not absolute and cannot be used to protect an activity that is otherwise illegal or contrary to statutory provisions. It also declined the petitioners’ plea for rehabilitation, observing that no rehabilitation policy could be invoked to regularize unauthorized commercial structures knowingly raised on restricted land.
Referring to its earlier ruling in Bhupinder Singh v. U.T., Chandigarh, the Court reiterated that the exemption under Section 15 of the Act applies only to structures genuinely subservient to agriculture and located in the abadi area as defined in revenue records. The fish, chicken and meat market in the present case, the Court said, had no direct or proximate nexus with agricultural operations and therefore could not claim exemption.
The Bench also dismissed the argument of selective action, holding that petitioners cannot seek relief on the basis of illegal constructions allegedly existing elsewhere. “No person can claim negative parity,” the Court observed.
Finding no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the demolition order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Bottom Line :
Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 - Unauthorized construction and commercial use on agricultural land falling in Control Area cannot be protected on plea of ownership, electricity connection, livelihood or rehabilitation - Demolition order passed after notice, inquiry and hearing is valid - Exemption under Section 15 applies only in limited circumstances and not to fish, chicken and meat market on agricultural land outside abadi area.
Statutory provision(s): Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 Sections 5, 6, 11, 12(2), 15, Constitution of India Article 21, Constitution of India Article 226, Constitution of India Article 14
Shamshid Ahmed v. Union of India, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2984485
