BATHINDA: The Public Action Committee (PAC), Mattewara, has officially asked the Punjab chief secretary to stop the proposal for regularizing ‘low-impact housing/farmhouses’ in the Shivalik–Kandi region. They argue that the policy is legally unsound, lacks scientific justification, and may violate binding Supreme Court guidelines.
PAC expressed concerns about the potential threat to some of Punjab’s most fragile landscapes, including areas designated under the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA) and regions bordering the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary. The Shivalik system features unstable geology, steep slopes, and significant sediment movement, where even minimal construction could lead to slope instability. The ongoing case WP (C) 1164/2023 (Ashok Kumar Sharma & Others v Union of India) highlighted that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the definition of forest conservation for all states and mandated the GIS-based identification of all forest-like land under Rule 16(1), a process yet to be completed in Punjab. The court also mentioned that chief secretaries could face personal accountability for non-compliance, emphasizing that no diversion of forest or similar areas is allowed without adhering to the necessary Forest Conservation Act (FCA) procedures.
According to PAC, given this legal context, no area in the Shivalik or Kandi region can be considered non-forest merely because of local policies branding it as low-impact. They noted that scientific concerns raised by experienced forest officials indicate that construction in similar delicate terrains in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand has resulted in slope failures and disasters. The PLPA was specifically enacted to preserve these vulnerable lands.
PAC also pointed out violations concerning the PLPA, the Forest Conservation Act, the Wildlife Protection Act, the Punjab Rural and Urban Planning and Development Act (PRTPDA) 1995, and the Periphery Act. They stated that any access roads through PLPA or forest-like regions would qualify as non-forest use and hence require prior approval from the central government under the FCA. Furthermore, they highlighted the lack of assessments by the SEIAA, the state wildlife board, the forest department, or geological experts.
PAC warned of the dangers of misuse and land encroachments, given that delisted PLPA areas are dispersed, poorly defined, and susceptible to misrepresentation in the guise of “farmhouse” regularization.
