Right To Livelihood Not License To Violate Law Protecting 'Unique Chandigarh': High Court Upholds Demolition Of Poultry Shed

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a demolition order against structures raised for a fish and poultry business on agricultural land in village Mani Majra, Chandigarh. It held that the right to livelihood cannot protect an activity that is otherwise illegal.

A Division Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Pravindra Singh Chauhan said that accepting the livelihood argument would allow a violator "to perpetuate his illegal act merely by asserting that the illegal structure is the source of his livelihood." Such a proposition, it said, would render the regulatory scheme of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, redundant.

"...the plea of 'right to livelihood', howsoever sympathetically viewed cannot be permitted to operate as a licence to violate the mandatory provisions of validly enacted statute, more particularly one enacted to preserve the planned character of the cityscape of the city as unique as Chandigarh."

The petitioners challenged a demolition order dated 13.04.2026, passed under Sections 5, 6 and 11 of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (as amended by the Chandigarh Administration (Amended) Act, 1972). It directed the removal of constructions on land in village Mani Majra, as unauthorised.

The petitioners said they had run a fish farming and poultry business on the land for 20 to 30 years, selling directly from the source since 1999. They said they had first worked with the landowners' permission and later bought the land through a sale deed based on General Power of Attorney, Will, Agreement and Special Power of Attorney. They had built animal sheds and tin sheds, and electricity meters had been installed in their names.

According to the petitioners, the Estate Office began issuing notices on a complaint by adjoining landowners, including a show cause notice dated 31.10.2023. They had also submitted a representation dated 22.11.2025 seeking a rehabilitation policy before any dispossession.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioner No. 1 owns the land and has a vested right to build on it for his livelihood. She said the electricity connections and bill payments supported the petitioners' bona fides. She also argued that the order breached natural justice, since the documents they furnished were ignored, and that it violated their right to livelihood under Article 21.

The Chandigarh Administration argued that the land is agricultural and falls within the "Control Area" notified under the Act, as the petitioners' own sale deed shows. It said no construction or change of land use is permitted there without prior permission. It submitted that a show cause notice was served, a personal hearing was offered, and an inquiry under Section 12(2) was conducted. The inquiry report and photographs, it said, established the unauthorised structures. It also argued that the petitioners bought the land knowing the statutory restrictions and so could not claim rehabilitation.

The respondents also objected that the petition was not maintainable for petitioners No. 2 to 15, who had not placed any document on record and had not challenged any notice or order issued against them.

 The Bench found that the only order under challenge concerned petitioner No. 1. No similar order against petitioners No. 2 to 15 was produced. It therefore examined only that order and expressed no opinion on any individual grievance of the other petitioners.

The Bench held that the petitioners' reliance on owning agricultural land was "fatal to the petitioners' case rather than advancing it". The sale deed dated 25.08.2020 expressly describes the land as agricultural. The petitioners, it said, therefore bought it with full knowledge of its nature and the statutory restrictions. A subsequent purchaser cannot claim a better title or immunity than what attached to the land at the time of purchase. Ownership of agricultural land does not by itself give the owner a right to build on it or change its use without permission under Sections 5 and 6. No such permission had been sought or granted.

It further held that an electricity connection is merely a service rendered by a statutory utility for a different purpose. It confers no right, title or interest in the land and cannot regularise an unauthorised structure.

The Bench found that a show cause notice was issued, an inquiry was conducted under Section 12(2), and the demolition order was passed only after the structures continued to exist. It held that a "bald and general assertion" of a breach of natural justice, without specific particulars, cannot vitiate an order passed after following the statutory procedure.

It added that furnishing documents after the notice, which did not satisfy the Act, could not bar the exercise of statutory powers once a breach was established.

The Bench held that the right to livelihood forms part of Article 21, but it is not absolute and cannot be stretched to protect an activity that is otherwise illegal. However genuine the claim, it gives no right to raise or keep unauthorised structures in the Control Area in the face of the prohibition in Sections 5 and 6.

The Court noted that the petitioners had not been deprived of or dispossessed from their land. Only the unauthorised structures had been ordered removed. It held that the absence of a rehabilitation policy could not make the action illegal, especially when the petitioners had built with full knowledge of the restrictions.

 The Bench rejected the argument that the authorities were ignoring illegal constructions in adjoining areas, holding that the petitioners could not claim negative parity.

The Bench held that the demolition order was passed in accordance with the Act and after compliance with natural justice, and suffered from no illegality or arbitrariness. The writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Shamshid Ahmed and Others v. Union of India and Others

Ms. Savita Sisodia, Advocate, and Mr. C.S.S.Sisodia, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr.Karan Kumar Jund, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent no.1-UOI.

Mr. Jaivir Singh Chandel, Additional Standing Counsel, Mr. Tanvir Singh Attariwala, Junior Panel Counsel, for respondents no.2 to 5.

Click here to read order