Gurgaon: Punjab and Haryana high court has restrained GMDA from carrying out an inspection of two group housing flats in the city.The case pertains to a dispute over alleged unauthorised alterations in the flats belonging to one person.A complaint was filed by GMDA alleging that the petitioner — Sachin Bembi — had carried out unauthorised alterations in flat numbers H-901 and H-1001.The flat owner has challenged repeated attempts to inspect the premises. The court listed the matter for Dec 15.Earlier, the petitioner had argued that GMDA’s statutory mandate primarily concerned infrastructure development and that it did not extend to work being carried out in a licensed colony governed by Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975.The petitioner also argued that the 1975 Act had overriding effect and that the premises had already been inspected by the authorities functioning under that legislation.The matter was then taken up on Tuesday, when the petitioner pointed out that despite the stay, respondent no 3 (the district town planner, enforcement, GMDA) had issued another email stating that an inspection would be conducted on Sept 16.Taking note of the submission, the division bench of Justice Vikas Bahl and Justice Divya Sharma restrained respondent no 3 from carrying out any inspection of the premises in question.The petitioner told the court that a joint inspection had already been conducted by two district town planners (planning and enforcement).According to the report submitted following the inspection, the owner had obtained a structural stability certificate and the consent of the coloniser for carrying out internal modifications.However, the officers recorded that the alterations were required to be compounded by the competent authority — director, town and country planning (Chandigarh) — in accordance with applicable provisions and the prevailing composition policy.The petitioner submitted that certain internal alterations were compoundable and that an application for their compounding had been submitted to the competent authority on Aug 26.The application, however, had not been decided when the matter came before the HC.The dispute later involved GMDA. The petitioner challenged a Sept 3 memo issued by district town planner (enforcement), GMDA, under which another inspection of the premises was proposed.On Sept 11, the HC had stayed the operation of a Sept 3 memo after the state sought time to obtain instructions.The court restrained respondent no 3 — the district town planner (enforcement), GMDA —from carrying out any inspection of the premises in question, including the inspection proposed for Sept 16.
