HomeNews

Farmhouse owners of Ansals Aravali Retreat protest against notices, Real Estate News, ET RealEstate

Like Tweet Pin it Share Share Email


Gurugram: Farmhouse owners of Ansals Aravali Retreat protest against noticesGURUGRAM: The farmhouse owners of Ansals Aravali Retreat have termed as “illegal” the show-cause notices served on them for alleged unauthorised construction, thus disturbing the ecological balance of the forest area in violation of a government notification issued in 1992.

This is because, the farmhouse owners, say the land was neither recorded as a forest area nor notified as a controlled area at the time of purchase.

On June 4, the Sohna municipal council served notices to owners of some 600 farmhouses of Ansals Aravali Retreat for alleged illegal construction, as per an earlier direction of the National Green Tribunal (NGT).

The farmhouse owners have also criticised the Gurugram administration’s recent move of replacing the term ‘gair mumkin farmhouse’ with ‘gair mumkin pahad’ in land records. “At the time of purchase by the developer in 1989-90, the land was neither recorded as a forest area nor notified as controlled area. Thus the recent order by the deputy commissioner is also illegal,” Arvinder Brara, a farm house owner, told TOI.

When contacted, deputy commissioner Amit Khatri said, “The show-cause notices have been sent by the municipal council of Sohna regarding illegal construction on gair mumkin pahad is as per the directions of the NGT as well as the high court. They being the superior courts, we are following their directives only.”

Environmentalists have, however, welcomed the move by the district administration. “It is good that the loophole has been plugged to allow enforcement of the Aravali notification,” said Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi, a green activist.

Another owner, Sharad Mohan, said, “We had approached the HC regarding the notices. The court had asked the authority to issue a proper notice to each farmhouse owner and give 10 days time to respond. We have responded that the land was not notified at the time of purchase.”





Source link