Punjab plans to regularise illegal construction within municipal limits
While the state govt prepares to bring in an ordinance to regularise illegal construction, HT Estates examines key challenges such as structural stability, infrastructure constraints and restricting future violations
The Punjab governments plans to regularise all illegal constructions within the municipal limits. ‘The proposed ‘Punjab one-time voluntary disclosure and settlement of violations of the Building Ordinance-2018’ will offer onetime settlement for buildings that are partially violating municipal building bylaws. Last week, the state cabinet had cleared the draft ordinance, but later withdrew it due to the pending by-elections in the state.
The number of unauthorised buildings without approved building plans is in lakhs. Most of such violations are non-compoundable, preventing regularisation under the existing provisions of the municipal law and building rules. Ludhiana, Jalandhar and Amritsar lead in the number of illegal constructions. Next come cities like Bathinda, Patiala and Phagwara. Most violations are in commercial establishments like hotels, hospitals and educational institutions, which stand to gain the most the regularisation of illegal constructions.
NON-COMPOUNDABLE VIOLATION TO COME UNDER PURVIEW
Under the proposed policy, only non-compoundable violations in buildings constructed in partial contravention of the building bylaws in MC areas will come under the purview of the regularisation policy. The regularisation will be done only if the building meets the required safety standards and has mandated parking provisions. No regularisation will be done unless parking space is provided. The applicant will also have to show an alternate parking space nearby. People will be able to regularise their buildings on the ‘as is where is’ basis. Regularisation will be permissible for the 50% of the permissible floor area ratio. People will have to apply for regularisation of the building within a month of the notification of the policy. Another two months will be provided for completing all paper works and conditions.
VIOLATORS CAN APPLY ONLINE
A person guilty of a non-compoundable building violation may disclose it voluntarily and apply online, along with photographs of the building.
If the owners of unauthorised buildings do not apply for settlement of violations or the applicant fails to make structural changes to fulfil the requirement of mandatory changes within the prescribed time period, water supply, sewerage connections to the entire building will be disconnected without any further notice, followed by sealing and demolition of the building at the cost of the owner. Buildings constructed in violation of the designated land use or any other act such as the NH Act will not be covered under policy. Encroachments will also be excluded from the purview of regularisation.
As a per a press statement issued by the state government, the proposed Punjab one-time voluntary disclosure and settlement of violations of the Building Ordinance is aimed at regularising constructions in larger public interest. The cabinet felt that since these unauthorised constructions had been coming up for the past several years, it was not feasible to demolish them at this stage, leaving regularisation as the only possible recourse, stated the press statement. But to critics of the policy, there seems to little rationale for regularisation of illegal construction except for generating some revenue for the government and allow few to regularise their violations.
‘STOPPING VIOLATIONS SHOULD BE PRIORITY’
Stating that it is a case of misplaced priorities, former director town planning, local government department, MS Aujla said, “Instead of regularising the violations, and giving amnesty to the violators, the government should first prioritise the formulation of a policy to stop the violations
from taking place. Such act will only encourage further violations of the building rules and fuel haphazard urban growth.”
The structural safety of these buildings built in violation of building rules and safety norms laid therein, also raises question whether the policy will compromise public safety.
Former Punjab chief town planner HS Bhogal said, “The structural stability and safety of such buildings is always questionable. How the government plans to enforce structural safety norms for such illegal constructions is very crucial but unlikely to be effectively checked. Simply taking money from violators, and regularising the illegal constructions can put safety of people living in the building and in adjacent buildings at mortal risk.” The undue pressure exerted by these illegal constructions on the local infrastructure must also be kept in mind before a blanket amnesty is implemented, “It is unlikely that the government will incorporate within this proposed policy the ways to mitigate the negative impact of these illegal constructions on the road network circulation and other amenities,” Bhogal added. The proposed policy, like the policy for regularisation of illegal colonies, is open ended in nature. “The authorities don’t have the numbers or data about buildings constructed in violation of the rules. Such open-ended policy will only encourage people to come up with illegal constructions and then get these regularised under the new policy. There seems to be no benefit for the public. Instead of containing the problems of congestion, parking chaos, pollution and safety, the government by bringing such policies will further aggravate such problems and accentuate conditions of urban mess in the state,” Aujla said.
FAILED ATTEMPTS AT REGULARISATION
This is not the first time when the state government has attempted to regularise unauthorised constructions by introducing a building regularisation scheme for municipalities in the state. The earlier attempt was made in 2004, but it was mired in legal logjam.
In neighbouring Himachal Pradesh, the government’s attempt to regularise illegal constructions failed when the Himachal HC last year set aside the HP Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act. The court had passed severe structures against the government for the move to “benefit the affluent”, and had stated, “The economically affluent and perhaps close to the executive, political or otherwise, who violated the laws with impunity, alone are going to be the beneficiaries.