Just about a month after the Punjab and Haryana High Court flagged a serious mismatch in official figures on illegal constructions in and around Siswan, the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) has informed the court that it has conducted a district-wide survey and identified 193 unauthorised constructions across Mohali, including the 28 earlier reported from Siswan village.The Bench was told that action has already been initiated action against the violators.Placing its action-taken report dated February 5 on record, GMADA stated that its regulatory branch was directed to conduct a detailed survey of 182 defaulters/unauthorised constructions across the district as reflected in the Forest Department’s affidavit.“Accordingly, the Regulatory Branch of GMADA has conducted a survey of total 193 numbers of unauthorized constructions (including the previously reported 28 defaulters/unauthorized constructions of Village Siswan) and based on the survey report, action under the provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 and the Punjab New Capital Periphery (Control) Act, 1952 has been initiated against the violators,” GMADA told the court.GMADA further assured the Bench that the exercise was still ongoing. “The process to survey all unauthorized constructions in de-listed forest land falling within the jurisdiction of GMADA in District S.A.S. Nagar is still to continue, which would be completed up to March 31 and appropriate action as per law shall also be initiated accordingly,” the authority stated.Clarifying its legal position, GMADA said the illegal commercial activities and constructions raised without permission amounted to violations of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act for breach of the Master/Regional Plan, and the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act. Quoting the statute, GMADA pointed out that Section 2 extended the Periphery Act to areas “within a distance of ten miles on all sides from the outer boundary of the land acquired for the Capital of the State at Chandigarh,” underscoring its applicability to large parts of SAS Nagar.The Bench, among others, is assisted in the matter by senior advocates DS Patwalia and Anand Chhibbar, along with counsel Gauravjit S Patwalia.HC had flagged inconsistency, sought district-wide listThe details flows from a January 8 order in which the High Court flagged a glaring inconsistency between affidavits filed by the Forest Department and GMADA on illegal constructions in Siswan and surrounding areas, and directed GMADA to file a fresh, comprehensive reply covering the entire district.Recording that the Forest Department had reported 182 defaulters, while GMADA’s affidavit mentioned only 28, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Neerja Kulwant Kalson had then observed: “There appears to be inconsistency between both these replies to the extent that the Forest Department has filed reply mentioning that there are 182 defaulters, but the reply filed on behalf of GMADA reveals that there are only 28 such defaulters.”When counsel explained that GMADA’s figures were confined to Siswan village while the Forest Department’s data covered the entire SAS Nagar district, the Bench directed: “Let GMADA file proper reply mentioning all the defaulters in entire district of SAS Nagar (Mohali).” The matter was then listed for further hearing on February 10.Larger scrutiny of eco-sensitive areasThe proceedings are part of sustained judicial scrutiny of non-forest and non-agricultural activities in Siswan, an area witnessing litigation over constructions, delisting under the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), and alleged environmental violations. In earlier orders, the High Court had sought full disclosure of all such activities, directed affidavits from senior GMADA officers, called for maps of divisions, ranges, blocks and compartments, and sought clarity on constructions standing on delisted or forest land.While noting that 169.22 hectares had been delisted from the PLPA’s purview, the court had also questioned ambiguities in the governing notification and called for the entire minutes of the April 26, 2010 meeting chaired by the Punjab Chief Secretary. Throughout, the Bench has reiterated that its concern is confined to whether forest areas or protected zones are being encroached upon by constructions.