News: Aravalli Retreat residents oppose derecognition of farmhouses-27/06/2020

https://www.hindustantimes.com/gurugram/aravalli-retreat-residents-oppose-derecognition-of-farmhouses/story-6g3MU0vUTzmRBTWK6zbcqK.html

Updated: Jun 27, 2020

Aravalli Retreat residents oppose derecognition of farmhouses

Following instructions laid down by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the deputy commissioner, on June 11, had ordered that the land use category of ‘gair mumkin farmhouse’ be struck from revenue records and replaced with ‘gair mumkin pahad’ — the original nomenclature.

Residents of the Ansal Aravalli Retreat Welfare Association (AARWA), at a press conference in the city on Friday, voiced their opposition to a recent order by the district administration, derecognising farmhouses built on Aravalli land in Gururgam.

Following instructions laid down by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the deputy commissioner, on June 11, had ordered that the land use category of ‘gair mumkin farmhouse’ be struck from revenue records and replaced with ‘gair mumkin pahad’ — the original nomenclature. This move, according to residents and landowners from Aravalli Retreat — a 1,200 acre complex consisting off 670 farmhouses in Raisina village — sets the precedent for demolition of their properties.

Gagandeep Singh, a resident and AARRWA member, said, “Until just a week ago, our land was recognised as ‘farmhouse’, and not ‘pahad’. By reversing this decision, the administration has put us in a position where we could lose what we have built here.”

‘Gair mumkin pahad’, as a land-use category, is protected under the ministry of environment, forest and climate change’s (MoEFCC) Aravalli Notification of May 7, 1992, which prohibits any non-forest activities in the Aravallis. On June 6, 2020, the Municipal Corporation of Sohna served show-cause notices to over 400 farmhouses in Aravalli Retreat, on grounds that they had been constructed in violation of the MoEFCC’s notification.

 

Sharad Mohan, another resident of Aravalli Retreat and a member of the AARRWA, said, “The deputy commissioner’s instructions, and the show-cause notices are misinformed. They are based on the NGT’s instructions that all structures built on gair mumkin pahad land after May 7, 1992, are illegal. However, before the MoEFCC’s Aravalli Notification could come into force, Aravalli Retreat had already ceased to be gair mumkin pahad.”

Experts and environmentalists explained that the ‘gair mumkin farmhouse’ category was introduced in revenue records around 1991, and has been used, over the years, by private developers to circumvent the MoEFCC’s Aravalli Notification. “There is no such term in revenue records historically. It’s sudden emergence around 1991, just before the Aravalli Notification was to come into force, raises questions as to who allowed these changes to be introduced in the record books, and why,” said Sarvadaman Oberoi, a city-based legal activist.

The validity of ‘gair mumkin farmhouse’ as a revenue term has been previously struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In a 2014 judgment, the court observed, “Concededly, the developers have got changed the kind of land from Gairmumkin Mountain (Pahad) to Gairmumkin Farmhouses. If any Patwari without any legal authority had made the stray entries... then such stray and illegal entries are non est, void and are not sufficient to hold that the land in litigation was Gairmumkin Farm houses (sic).” The court also said that these lands will continue to be recognised as ‘pahad’, and not as ‘farmhouse’.

 

Arvinder Brara, an AARRWA member, contested that the administration’s order was in contempt of court. “This matter has also been fought in the Faridabad environment and sessions courts, in different instances. There are two orders, one from 2013 and another from 2017, which state that the Aravalli Retreat project does not violate the Aravalli Notification of 1992.” In a letter to Amit Khatri on June 24, Brara wrote, “We request you to withdraw your order... as it is in contempt of the orders of the Hon’ble Faridabad Environment and Sessions Court.”

However, in October 2018, in the case of Soniya Ghosh v/s State of Haryana, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) ruled that, “Any construction raised on the forest area or the area otherwise covered by the Notification dated 07.05.1992 without permission of the competent authority (after the date of the said Notification) has to be treated as illegal and such forest land has to be restored (sic).”

According to activist Sarvadaman Oberoi, “The NGT’s ruling naturally overrides that of any other lower courts, so the deputy commissioner’s instructions are not in violation. On the contrary, it obeys the instructions of the highest environmental court in India.”

 

Representatives of Ansal Developers were not present at Friday’s press conference and did not respond to requests for comment through the day. Neither did the deputy commissioner.