Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri held that Clause 2.0 of a State-issued notification fixing a cut-off date for entitlement to register plots in unauthorized colonies was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court quashed the clause and directed the authorities to release basic amenities, including a permanent electricity connection, to the petitioner. The Court held that the right to life includes access to essential services, and a lawful owner cannot be denied these solely on the basis of an unjustified cut-off date.

The petitioner sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari challenging Clause 2.0 of a notification dated 25.11.2024 issued by the State of Punjab. This clause, further endorsed via a letter dated 04.12.2024, restricted the grant of electricity connections in unauthorized colonies only to those persons who had executed title documents such as agreements to sell or powers of attorney before 31.07.2024. It also allowed registration of such plots without requiring a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from competent authorities, but only during the window between 01.12.2024 and 28.02.2025.

Also Read: “‘Every Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Painted as Rape’: Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Retired Judicial Officer, Citing Abuse of Process”

The petitioner, who had purchased a residential plot measuring 11 marlas in Silvar Estate, District Hoshiarpur, and obtained a sanctioned building plan, had earlier been granted a temporary electricity connection on 28.03.2022. The account number assigned was 3007798623, and the connection was categorized under LS/TEMPDS_DPC.

Without any prior notice or stated reason, the temporary connection was disconnected on 01.04.2024. Despite paying the requisite fees on 24.06.2024 and applying for a permanent connection, no further steps were taken by the authorities. The petitioner served multiple legal notices and representations, including on 04.07.2024 and 30.08.2024, but received no effective redress.

The petitioner argued that she had validly acquired title, obtained sanctioned building permissions, and had already completed construction on her property. She pointed out that other nearby residents, such as one Satwinder Singh, had electricity connections, while she was arbitrarily denied the same. The notification in question, which sought to regulate unauthorized colonies, required residents to re-register ownership within a narrow time frame, which the petitioner argued was irrational and lacking in any intelligible differentia.

The State maintained that the impugned notification was issued under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 and the Punjab Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2013. It justified the policy on grounds of regulating unauthorized development and bringing it within the ambit of formal planning frameworks.

The petitioner had earlier approached the Court in CWP No.20729 of 2024, following which a direction was issued to the competent authority to decide the legal representation. However, in view of inaction and continued denial of services, the petitioner approached the Court again through the present writ petition.

The Court examined Clause 2.0 of the notification and recorded:

“Any person who up to 31st July, 2024, for an area up to 500 sq. yds. situated in an unauthorized colony has entered into a power of attorney or agreement to sell on stamp paper or having any registered document with respect to title of land shall be entitled to get registration of such plot executed before a Registrar or Sub-Registrar or Joint Sub-Registrar from 1st December 2024 to 28th February 2025 without obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Competent Authority.”

The Bench noted that the petitioner held a registered deed of conveyance and a valid building sanction, and had raised construction lawfully. It stated:

“There was no requirement as such to re-register the plot with the Sub Registrar concerned.”

It held that requiring lawful owners to re-register already registered properties, within an arbitrary period, served no rational purpose:

“The necessity as enjoined upon the plot owners to, despite theirs earlier holding validly executed registered deeds of conveyance, thus yet re-execute registered deeds of conveyance… exhibits that therebys the earlier registered deeds of conveyance become annulled that too, with no power vesting in the authority concerned.”

The Court further stated that such provisions arbitrarily denied rights to a class of valid owners:

“The prescription of the cut-off date snatches or truncates the rights of those vendees who had earlier acquired a perfect title over the disputed plots.”

On the issue of fundamental rights, the Bench observed:

“The fundamental right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India… would not become endowed, in case this Court validates, the per se discriminatory and arbitrary cut-off date.”

The Court found that the clause lacked rational nexus to the objective of regulating unauthorized colonies:

“The cut-off date is meaningless and/or is redundant, to the extent… it is neither based on any intelligible differentia nor it has any nexus with the objective sought to be achieved.”

The Bench concluded that the provision amounted to an arbitrary denial of basic amenities in contravention of constitutional protections.

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Quashes Patent Refusal Citing Procedural Violations: "Any Objection to Prior Art Must Be Known Before Hearing; Patent Office Is Not an Adversary of the Applicant"

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed Clause 2.0 of the notification dated 25.11.2024 and its endorsement dated 04.12.2024. It recorded:

“The impugned clause 2.0 containing the supra stipulation in the notification dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-10), which has also been endorsed vide letter dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-11), thus, is hereby quashed and set aside.”

It further directed: “The respondent concerned is directed to release all the basic amenities, vis-à-vis the subject plot, as therebys the fundamental right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, thus would become endowed to the present petitioner.”

Finally, the Court ordered: “The respondent concerned is directed to release the permanent electricity connection to the petitioner’s house.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. H.S. Baidwan, Advocate

Case Title: Jaishree Bagga v. State of Punjab and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:045232-DB
Case Number: CWP-5971-2025
Bench: Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Justice Vikas Suri

[Read/Download order]