HC Says DTCP Can Act in Licensed Colonies

GURUGRAM: Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that once a licensed colony comes inside municipal limits, the Department of Town and Country Planning does not lose its power to act against building violations by individual plot holders.

The ruling matters most for DLF Phases 1 to 5, where unauthorised construction and commercial use of residential properties have been under court scrutiny for years. Plot owners and occupiers had raised a preliminary objection arguing that after a colony licensed under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, enters municipal corporation limits, only the corporation under the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, can proceed against them. The court rejected that objection.

Survey numbers and the Supreme Court detour

A division bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor noted a comprehensive survey across DLF 1 to 5 covering 14,757 plots, including 11,008 in the general category and 3,749 in the EWS category. Survey reports flagged commercial use of residential plots and construction beyond permissible floor area ratio or with additional floors, classed as non-compoundable. Notices under Section 10(2) of the 1975 Act followed, then restoration orders. In some cases sealing, demolition proceedings and FIRs were also started.

The dispute itself stretches back to about 2009 and has often been cited when enforcement stalled in court. After earlier high court action, the matter reached the Supreme Court. In October 2025 the Supreme Court restored the petitions, observing that alleged unauthorised construction or commercial use contrary to norms cannot be protected, but affected owners and occupiers must get a hearing. Following those directions, the high court restored proceedings. Public notices in December 2025 drew 763 objections against 5,099 identified violators. DTCP enforcement then passed speaking orders, including one rejecting the jurisdiction challenge.

The latest order keeps the 1975 Act enforcement route open even where licensed colonies later fall inside municipal boundaries. The bench also said any question of transferring DLF 1 to 5 to the corporation must be examined against the relevant statutes. For residents and commercial users in those phases, the practical takeaway is that DTCP notices and restoration orders are not wiped out merely because the colony now sits on the municipal map.

The jurisdictional fight had become a practical shield for some plot holders who argued that once MCG took over municipal services, only the corporation could seal or prosecute building breaches. DTCP's survey-backed notices under the 1975 Act were stuck behind that preliminary objection. By rejecting it, the high court keeps both the municipal and town-planning tracks available, which matters wherever licensed colonies have aged into denser commercial use without matching approvals. Builders and residents watching DLF 1 to 5 now know that a municipal boundary change alone will not erase an existing DTCP restoration order or Section 10(2) notice.