The Residents Welfare Association (RWA), Sector 2, has raised a red flag over the proposed installation of gates on the greenbelt along the V-6 road outside Houses No. 46 to 50. It has, among other things, contended that the move would run contrary to the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s earlier direction that the green belt “shall be maintained as it is”.
This is the second communication by the RWA on the issue. It had last year objected to the Municipal Corporation’s move to push through the Rs 29.26-lakh road-widening project apparently for the exclusive convenience of “temporary occupants of houses 46 to 50 allotted to ministers whose occupancy is ordinarily transient and changes every five years”.
In its latest representation addressed to Chandigarh Municipal Corporation Chief Engineer and other authorities, the RWA through vice-president Gauravjit Singh Patwalia has asserted that the residents came to know through oral communication with a junior engineer that gates were now proposed in connection with the road widening work in the area. Terming the proposal “completely unacceptable”, he contended that such installations would encourage misuse.
Patwalia placed reliance on the judgment dated May 2, 2023, passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a civil writ petition filed by Balvir Sehgal and other petitioners against the Union Territory of Chandigarh and other respondents.
He contended that the court, while disposing of the matter, had recorded that “the greenbelt shall be maintained as it is by the respondents”. Patwalia argued that any attempt to introduce gates or access-control structures would indirectly defeat the spirit of the High Court’s direction. “Such an action would encourage misuse of the green area for parking and vehicular occupation and would be completely contrary to the assurances earlier recorded before the High Court regarding maintenance and preservation of the greenbelt,” it was added.
He contended the residents were not opposed to minimal road widening for traffic management provided the same did not materially alter or destroy the greenbelt’s character. Referring to the Chandigarh Master Plan and the broader concept of Chandigarh as a “green city”, he asserted that open spaces and green belts along avenues were integral to the city’s original planning ethos. The RWA cautioned that any structural intervention reducing openness would run contrary to these foundational principles.
The representation also recalls the broader observations recorded by the High Court in the same litigation, where it was noted that the horticulture wing had restored the green belt, closed gaps in toe walls, and undertaken plantation, with the petition subsequently disposed of in light of compliance assurances.
Before parting with the communique, the RWA asked the Municipal Corporation to ensure that gates or access structures were not installed on or adjoining the green belt and the widening remained strictly minimal and limited to traffic needs.
The MC was also asked to ensure no portion of the green belt was converted into parking or paved enclosure, and the status of the green belt was strictly preserved in terms of the High Court order. It further cautioned that failure to adhere to the judicial mandate might compel the RWA to initiate appropriate legal proceedings, including contempt action, for protection of the green belt.
The association urged the authorities to balance public convenience with environmental preservation, while ensuring that the character of the protected green belt remains intact.
