You will be in trouble if anything is done to Aravalli, SC warns Haryana government

New Delhi: The Supreme Court warned the Haryana government Friday that it will be in "trouble" if it has done "anything" with Aravalli hills or forest area by passing amendments to an Act to allow construction there.

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Deepak Gupta observed this after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for Haryana, said he will satisfy the court that amendments in the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), 1900 were not done to "help somebody".

"We are concerned with Aravalli. If you are doing anything with Aravalli or Kant Enclave (where the top court had ordered demolition of buildings due to illegal constructions in forest area) you will be in trouble. If you are doing anything with the forest, you will be in trouble. We are telling you," the bench told Mehta.

On March 1, the bench had come down heavily on the Haryana government for passing amendments to the law and said the state would not act on it without the court's permission.

On February 27, the Haryana Assembly had passed amendments to the Act opening up thousands of acres of land to real estate and other non-forest activity in the area that was protected under it for over a century.

The amendments to the Act were passed by the state assembly amid vociferous protests and a walkout by opposition parties.

Haryana Chief Minister M L Khattar had said that the Punjab Land Preservation (Haryana Amendment) Bill, 2019, was the "need of the hour", and had added that it was a "very old" Act and much has changed over a period of time.

This issue has cropped up in the court which is dealing with a matter in which it had earlier directed demolition of illegal constructions in the forest area of Aravalli hills in Haryana.

During the brief hearing on Friday, Mehta told the bench that the Assembly has passed the bill but it has not become an Act yet.

He also said that media reports which claimed the amendments was passed by the state government to favour real estate developers were not correct.