Gurgaon: Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the relief granted to parties accused of unauthorised construction on disputed land in Gurgaon, observing that arbitration proceedings between private parties could not stall statutory action against illegal structures.The case concerns a 1.4-acre land parcel in Chakkarpur village, where it was alleged that there had been illegal encroachment and shops built without necessary approval.The bench was hearing a contempt plea filed against Haryana govt officials by Rajdarbar Iconic Venture Pvt Ltd, pertaining to alleged violation of an SC ruling on Dec 17, 2024. The order had had laid down a framework to regulate building construction and ensure compliance with sanctioned plans.A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that Municipal Corporation Gurgaon had already concluded that the structures were “absolutely unauthorised and illegal” and a demolition order had been issued.The court was informed that the respondents had challenged the demolition order before the commissioner, Gurugram division, under Section 261(2) of Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. The appellate authority stayed coercive action and directed maintenance of status quo till arbitration proceedings between the parties were completed.The apex court observed that the arbitral tribunal was only examining competing claims over the land and not the legality of the structures on it. The bench said statutory authorities were duty-bound to independently act against illegal construction under municipal and town planning laws.“Prima facie, the appellate authority ought not to have made the arbitration proceedings one of the grounds for interfering with the demolition order,” the bench observed.The corporation said it was preparing to challenge the appellate authority’s order before the Punjab and Haryana HC. Directing the civic body to “act fast”, the bench said the HC should examine the matter expeditiously.SC also directed the district town planner (enforcement), Gurgaon, to proceed in accordance with Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, particularly sections 3B and 10, which deal with unauthorised development and enforcement measures.While disposing of the contempt petition, the court said it would request the tribunal to conclude the arbitration proceedings at the earliest.
