It is definitely most refreshing, most reassuring and so also certainly most reinvigorating to learn that while striking the right chord, the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Jaishree Bagga vs State of Punjab and Others in  CWP-5971-2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045232-DB that was reserved initially on 4.3.2025 and then was finally pronounced on 3.4.2025 while underscoring most forcefully and precisely that receiving basic amenities in a plot form a part of the fundamental right to life has quashed a clause in a notification that was issued by the Punjab State Government that provided a cut-off date for the grant of electricity connection in an unauthorized colony. The Division Bench made it crystal clear that the said cut-off date may have some sound legal effect but only with respect to the unauthorized constructions raised over unauthorized colonies. It was also pointed out that however, it had no worth at all in the present factual scenario in light of a validly executed registered deed of conveyance and a validly raised construction over the subject plot.

It would be vital to note that the Chandigarh High Court was considering a petition that had sought the quashing of a clause embodied in the notification dated November 25, 2024 which was endorsed vide a letter pertaining to the grant of an electricity connection in an unauthorized colony. We thus see that the Bench while finding merit in the petition allowed the same. It is thus in the fitness of things that the Bench quashed the impugned clause while directing the respondent concerned to release the permanent electricity connection to the petitioner’s house.

At the very outset, this progressive, pragmatic, pertinent, precise and persuasive judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sureshwar Thakur for a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikas Suri sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, thus seeking the quashing of clause 2.0, embodied in the notification dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-10), which was endorsed vide letter dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-11), regarding the grant of electricity connection in an unauthorized colony, whereby only upto 31st of July 2024, vis-a-vis those allottees who have entered into power(s) of attorney or agreement(s) to sell on stamp paper or were having any registered document, thus became endowed the entitlement to obtain registrations from the Registrar or Sub-Registrar, or Joint Sub Registrar, thus from 1.12.2024 to 28.02.2025, whereupon there was no necessity of obtaining No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the competent authority of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Punjab.”

As we see, the Division Bench then discloses in para 2 observing that, “The said restriction is contended to debar the bona fide purchasers who prior to the stipulated date thus had acquired a valid right, title and interest over the subject plot rather from obtaining the requisite NOC. Therefore, it is contended that the apposite cut off, date is discriminatory besides abridges or snatches the rights of those plot holders, who had made valid purchases of the subject plots and had subsequently legally constructed residential houses, prior to (supra) dates nor the said cut off date is based upon any intelligible differentia nor has any rationale nexus with the object(s) sought to be achieved. Therefore, through the fixing of the cut off date, they become disabled to obtain the NOCs for the relevant purposes.”

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench while elaborating on facts of the case envisages in para 3 stating that, “The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased 11 marlas land, situated in Silvar Estate, Street No.1, Opposite resident of Raj Kumar, on Bajwara Bypass, village Bajwara, District Hoshiarpur. Since the petitioner has purchased the aforesaid land for the purpose of constructing a house and accordingly the petitioner obtained the apposite sanctioned plan, thus from the authorities concerned. As per the building plan, the covered area was 316 Sq. ft. and the rest of the area was kept open.”

Truth be told, the Division Bench reveals in para 4 mentioning that, “For the purpose of construction, the petitioner had taken temporary electricity connection on 28.3.2022 bearing Account No.3007798623 and the bill category was mentioned as LS/TEMPDS_DPC.”

Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 5 that, “Since there is no defect either in the ownership of the petitioner, nor the petitioner defaulted in obtaining sanctions vis-a-vis the building plan, therefore, the petitioner was sanguine that her temporary connection would be regularized. However to the dismay of the petitioner, the officials of respondent No.5 rather disconnected the temporary electricity connection of the petitioner, on 1.4.2024, but without assigning any reason and/or without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to explain the circumstances/defect, if any, whereupon she was to be tenably declared to become dis-entitled from continuing with the temporary electricity connection or for making the said temporary connection to be permanent.”

Simply put, the Division Bench specifies in para 6 stating that, “Subsequently, the petitioner applied to the respondent Nos.4 and 5, thus for the installation of the permanent electricity connection and for that purpose through Annexure P-4 on 24.6.2024, even the requisite fees was also paid by the petitioner.”

Lamentably, the Division Bench laments in para 7 pointing out that, “Despite the submission of the supra application, yet no action has been taken thereon, by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and as already submitted, the temporary electricity connection of her house rather was disconnected on 01.04.2024. Resultantly, in the scorching summer, the petitioner was led to live in the subject house, without the basic amenity of electricity, despite the petitioner undertaking to submit the requisite fees, thus for the releasing of the permanent connection, if any.”

Further, the Division Bench points out in para 8 that, “The petitioner further avers that in the vicinity of her house, one Satwinder Singh, is also provided electricity connection bearing Account No.3003330781. The number of users of electricity connection(s) in the vicinity is not restricted, rather all the residents are having electricity connection. However, yet no electricity connection has been given to the petitioner.”

Do further note, the Division Bench notes in para 9 that, “When no action was taken for restoring the temporary electricity connection nor the petitioner was granted permanent electricity connection, therefore, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 4.7.2024 (Annexure P-5) upon the respondents No.2 to 6, calling upon them, to either restore the temporary electricity connection or grant her the permanent connection.”

It cannot be lost sight of that the Division Bench lays bare in para 10 pointing out that, “Despite the receipt of legal notice, no action was taken by the respondents. The petitioner continued to approach the respondents and in that regard the petitioner came to know about the notification dated 18.10.2018, issued by the respondent No.1, wherefrom, it transpired that for the purpose of dealing with any unauthorized colony, the Punjab Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2013’) has been enacted; the same was reenacted in the year 2014 and further reenacted in the year 2016 whereunder a policy No.12/2/2014-5HG2/3052 dated 21.08.2013 (amended vide No.12/2/13-5Hg2/4017 dated 5.11.2013) and further policy No.12/04/16-5Hg2/892764/1 dated 15.12.2016, thus was/were notified for the compounding of unauthorized colonies and for the regularization of plots/buildings falling under unauthorized colonies.”

Interestingly enough, the Division Bench then mentions in para 11 that, “The notification further provides, that in the exercising of the power conferred by Section 9 of the Act of 2013, thus the supra notification has been issued for the compounding of the unauthorized colonies and for the regularization of the plots and building(s), falling within such colonies.”

What also has to be taken into account is that the Division Bench lays bare in para 12 disclosing that, “The petitioner assailed the notification (Annexure P-7) by way of filing CWP No.20729 of 2024 which came up for hearing before this Court on 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-8), and, this Court was pleased to dispose of the same by observing, that in event of any sub-judice legal notice/ representation, thereupon the competent authority shall consider and deal with the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks.”

Notably, the Division Bench then discloses in para 13 that, “The aforesaid order was sent to the respondent along with the representation dated 30.08.2024 through registered letter (Annexure P-9). Although the respective registration of the sale deed, as well as the construction raised by the petitioner after obtaining the relevant sanctions rather are not in dispute, but the sale deed was stated to be not entertainable for the second time thus within a period from 1.12.2024 to 28.2.2025. A copy of the notification with regard to the relevant stipulation becomes appended herewith as Annexure P-10 and the circular issued by respondents is appended herewith as Annexure P-11.”

Furthermore, the Division Bench points out in para 14 that, “After coming to know about the aforesaid discriminatory clause, the petitioner sent a representation (Annexure P-12) to the Chief Engineer (Commercial) of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.”

It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench then discloses in para 15 stating that, “When no adherence was shown to Annexure P-12, thereupons the petitioner served a legal notice dated 15.1.2025 (Annexure P-13) upon the respondent(s), whereins, it became mentioned that the (supra) cut-off date, which has been fixed in the notification (Annexure P-10), when has further been given effect to vide circular (Annexure P-11), thus, is/are not sustainable rather are discriminatory.”

What merits noticing is that the Division Bench then specifies in para 16 mentioning that, “The nerve centre of the instant case is clause 2.0 of the notification dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-10), provision whereof becomes extracted hereinafter. 

“In pursuance to the said amendment of The Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation. Act, 1995, the Governor of Punjab exercising the power vested under section 20 (5) of The Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 and all other powers enabling him in this behalf is pleased to announce that any person who upto 31st July, 2024, for an area upto 500 sq. yds. situated in an unauthorized colony has entered into a power of attorney or agreement to sell on stamp paper or having any registered document w.r.t title of land shall be entitled to get registration of such plot executed before a Registrar or Sub-Registrar or Joint Sub-Registrar from 1st December 2024 to 28th February 2025 without obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Competent Authority of Department of Housing and Urban Development, Punjab and Department of Local Government, Punjab as the case may be.”

Simply stated, the Division Bench states in para 17 that, “A perusal of the clause (supra), reveals that any person who upto 31st July, 2024, for an area upto 500 sq. yds, situated in an unauthorized colony, has entered into a power of attorney or agreement to sell on stamp paper or having any registered document with reference to title of land, shall be entitled to obtain registration of such apposite plot, from the Registrar or Sub-Registrar or Joint Sub-Registrar, but from 1st December 2024 to 28th February 2025. On the makings of the said registration, it was stated therein, that there is no requirement of obtaining any No Objection Certificate from the Competent Authority.”

What’s more, the Division Bench then clearly points out in para 18 that, “Although when neither the execution of the sale deed appertaining to the subject plot nor the sanction of the building plan which resulted in construction being raised over the disputed plot, rather are under any cloud. Therefore, the effect of the above is that, there was no requirement as such to re-register the plot with the Sub Registrar concerned.”

For sake of argument, the Division Bench propounds in para 19 that, “Even if assumingly there was any requirement for rescinding the earlier made registration qua the plot concerned, thereupon the power to rescind the earlier executed deed of conveyance became vested in the Civil Court concerned.”

Needless to say, the Division Bench states in para 20 that, “The necessity as enjoined upon the plot owners to, despite their earlier holding validly executed registered deeds of conveyance, thus yet re-execute registered deeds of conveyance, but ipso facto exhibits, that thereby the earlier registered deeds of conveyance become annulled that too, with no power vesting in the authority concerned, to rescind the earlier executed registered deeds of conveyance. As such, there was no requirement for re-registration of the subject plots concerned.”

As a corollary, the Division Bench holds in para 21 that, “As a consequence, the prescription of the cut off date, snatches or truncates, the rights of those vendees who had earlier acquired a perfect title over the disputed plots and yet are led to make a re-registration of the plots, thus from/within the cut off date. Moreover, thereafter those plot owners who despite obtaining valid sanctions from the competent department, thus become, precluded from the (supra) cut off date i.e. 1st December 2024 to 28th February, 2025, as mentioned in the impugned notification dated 25.11.2024, rather from raising further constructions and also become further precluded to obtain the NOCs from the department concerned, as relate to providing of basic amenities to the dwelling houses of the concerned.”

     Quite significantly, the Division Bench hastens to add in para 22 pointing out that, “Resultantly, thereby the cut off date is meaningless and/or is redundant, to the extent (supra) qua thereby it is neither based on any intelligible differentia nor it has any nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, inasmuch as, the unauthorized constructions over an unauthorized colony being permissible to be compounded, thus only within the arena of the stipulations as made in the apposite notification/rules/building bye- laws. Though the said cut off date, may have some sound legal effect, but only with respect to the unauthorized constructions raised over unauthorized colonies, besides may have some legal worth in respect of invalidly executed registered deeds of conveyances, but it has no worth at all, in the present factual scenario, thus unfolding qua with there being a validly executed registered deed of conveyance, besides when there being a validly raised construction over the subject plot, yet re-registration thereof, becoming stipulated Therefore, the cut off date is arbitrary and discriminatory qua the instant factual scenario, and to the said extent it is required to be read down, and, is so read down.”

Finally and far most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 23 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “In aftermath, there is merit in the instant petition and the same is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned clause 2.0 containing the supra stipulation in the notification dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-10), which has also been endorsed vide letter dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-11), thus, is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the respondent concerned, is directed to release all the basic amenities, vis-a-vis the subject plot, as thereby the fundamental right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, thus would become endowed to the present petitioner, which otherwise would not become endowed, in case this Court validates, the per se discriminatory and arbitrary cut off date, as embodied in Clause 2.0 of the notification dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-10). Accordingly, the respondent concerned, is directed to release the permanent electricity connection to the petitioner’s house.”

In a nutshell, we thus see that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it abundantly clear that the basic amenity of electricity is fundamental right to life. It also very rightly termed the cut-off date for the grant of electricity connection in unauthorized colony as arbitrary. No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,