Chandigarh: Observing “complete red-tapism and inaction”, the Punjab and Haryana high court has proposed imposing costs of Rs 10 lakh each on the offices of the Director General, Department of Town and Country Planning, and the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), to be deposited with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, over prolonged delays in land acquisition for sectoral roads and provision of basic infrastructure.The HC said the proposed costs were warranted to address administrative inaction, observing that the ultimate consumer cannot be made the “sacrificial lamp for the systemic inefficiency and prolonged slumber of State instrumentalities”.Directing the Municipal Corporation of Gurugram (MCG), HSVP and the Town and Country Planning Department to file affidavits specifying timelines for land acquisition, construction of sectoral roads and provision of basic amenities within four weeks, the High Court also directed the Chief Secretary, Haryana, to submit details of costs imposed by the court in the past five years where the state had been permitted to recover the amounts from erring officials, along with the status of recovery.The division bench of Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj and Justice Ravinder Malik passed the directions while hearing a bunch of connected petitions, filed by Sharad Farms and Holdings Private Limited against State of Haryana and others.The Bench observed that the case highlighted “just another case of complete apathy and inaction on the part of the HSVP”, noting that the process for acquisition of land for a major sectoral road, initiated in 2008, had not been re-initiated even after 18 years.The HC noted that an affidavit dated July 14, 2026, filed by HSVP disclosed “nothing more than thumping words and no actions or commitment” on the authority’s part, except for notifying the Haryana Institute of Public Administration as the nodal agency to conduct the social impact assessment.“Furthermore, no process for acquisition of land has been initiated,” the Bench observed, adding that the authorities had not committed to any timelines for fulfilling their obligations. It also noted that the respondents had not denied that the petitioners had already deposited the entire external development charges (EDC).“It is deeply distressing to note that while colossal amounts towards EDC have been paid to and retained by the State since the year 2008, the ultimate consumers and bonafide home buyers have been deprived of basic infrastructure facilities for more than a decade,” the HC said in its order.The bench observed that administrative lethargy was not a victimless omission and directly and disproportionately penalised common citizens. It further noted that delays in land acquisition and execution of development works could increase overall project costs, resulting in enhanced EDC and an inflated financial burden on end-purchasers and consumers.“The statutory mechanism under the 1975 Act are designed to facilitate Planned Urban Development for the welfare of the public and fosters corresponding obligations on the State as well,” the Bench observed, adding that homebuyers could not be subjected to endless waiting and “escalating financial hardship because of bureaucratic apathy.”The Bench also observed that the responses submitted by the state, MCG and HSVP were “only completely non-responsive and defeat the concept of a welfare state”.During the hearing, advocate Deepak Sabherwal, appearing for a respondent, submitted that the JIC report had already been submitted and that the process for acquisition had been taken up by the government and the Department of Town and Country Planning. However, no timelines had been provided by the Director General of the department for initiating and completing the acquisition or implementing and providing external development works.Proposing costs of Rs 10 lakh each on the offices of the Director General, Town and Country Planning Department, and HSVP, the HC directed that the amounts be deposited in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund at PGIMER, Chandigarh. It further directed the state to ensure that the costs were recovered from the erring officials in accordance with law, observing that the financial burden arising from official inaction and laxity could not be passed on to taxpayers.The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Aashish Chopra with Advocates Rupa Pathania and Ajitheshwar Singh submitted that although courts ordered recovery of costs from guilty officials, such recovery was seldom carried out.“Under the given circumstances, it prima facie appears to be an act of willful disobedience of orders passed by the Courts,” the bench observed.The Chief Secretary, Haryana, was accordingly directed to file an affidavit within four weeks detailing High Court orders passed during the past five years in which the state had been granted liberty to recover costs from erring officials, along with the status of recovery.The HC listed the matter for November 16, 2026, and clarified that if the affidavit specifying a short timeline was not filed within four weeks, the Chief Administrator, HSVP, would have to remain present in court on the next date of hearing.
