As a concept, approach and option to save cities from the onslaught of unauthorized, haphazard, sub-standard and unplanned development, planners have posted the agenda of creating a periphery around the urban limits. Periphery is meant to provide an opportunity and option to regulate, rationalize, dictate the development in the area outside the defined limits of the city by regulating the sub-division of land, change of landuse and construction of the built environment and meeting the day-to-day needs of the city. Periphery and city area meant to remain integral and connected parts of urban planning and development process. Freezing the peri-urban area, Periphery is conceived to be protector of the city, from unplanned developmental hazards. Concept had its first application India in the new capital city of Chandigarh, first defined up to 8kms in the year 1952 and then extended to 16kms in 1962. Periphery has its relevance only when defined/governed/managed by the same administrative agency/authority other it remains open to be misused, abused and distorted if managed by different agencies/states. Periphery concept in Chandigarh did wonderful job till 1966, when it was sub-divided into states of Punjab/Haryana, with very little left with city. Periphery, as it stands today has lost its relevance and has emerged the greatest threat to the basic fabric of the planned development of the city. Periphery stands mutilated by the forces of urbanization which has been unleashed by the governments of sister states by setting up two large cities of Mohali and Panchkula- larger in population and scope when compared with Chandigarh. Planners will do well the visit the concept of periphery, taking lesson from Chandigarh and evolve and define an agenda/policy framework for cities growth and development in the peri-urban areas, addressing the issue and relevance of the concept and approach as promoter of development and to make periphery a dynamic process/Approach Future of cities will largely hinge on the rational development of peri- urban area.

1. THE PUNJAB NEW CAPITAL (PERIPHERY) CONTROL ACT,
1952 – AN ANALYSIS
*Jit Kumar Gupta; jit.kumar1944@gmail.com
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Every plan for its effective implementation has to be backed by an equally effective
and efficient legislation. Without an appropriate legislative frame-work no plan can
achieve the developmental and management objectives which it is supposed to achieve.
Therefore, appropriate legislation should form an integral part of rational planning
procedures and appropriate development and management strategy for any human
settlement. The need for legislative backing assumes importance in the context that
whenever settlements grow, many development forces are unleashed and the areas
around settlements become highly potential in terms of growth and development. If
development in these areas is not properly and effectively regulated, controlled and
managed then it comes under the influence of haphazard development. Such haphazard
development is often highly substandard and violates with impunity all the norms of
planning and development. If uncontrolled, it leads to choking of the area and
destruction of the very fabric of settlement. Thus legislative framework would be a
pre-requisite for effectively managing the development of any area around a city.
1.2 Chandigarh has been widely acclaimed as a Mecca of planning and architecture
because of various innovations incorporated in its planning, designing, development
and management. Not only many unique concepts in plan preparation were
incorporated but planners also ensured that the development around the new capital
city should be of a high standard. No city exists in isolation but has an area of
influence which supports the city in terms of its basic needs and in turn is benefited
from the development of the mother city. This area (which supports the mother
city) is called the periphery of that city. City and periphery thus have close physical,
economic, social and cultural linkages, and for effective development they must be
considered in their entirety. This concept forms the basis of balanced regional growth
and development.
1.3 Taking cognizance of the above facts and to ensure proper development of the capital
city, at the same time eliminating chances of slums and haphazard development

2. 2
coming up around it, a legislation specifically known as ‘The Punjab New Capital
(Periphery) Control Act’. was enacted in the year 1952 (soon after the foundation of
the new city was laid in 1951). This paper is written primarily to analyse various
provisions of this novel act which is comprehensive (even through consists merely of
16 sections), simple in its operation and effective for regulating the development
around human settlements. Attempt has been made to explain the various provisions of
the Act, operational difficulties encountered besides the causes of failure and the
present status of the periphery. Important judgments have also been quoted to clarify
the various provisions of the Act.
2.0 THE ACT
In 1952, the government of Punjab enacted the Act known as the Punjab New Capital
(Periphery) Control Act “to control and regulate the periphery of New Capital of
State of Punjab”. The statement of objects and reasons for enactment of law notified
in the extraordinary Punjab Government Gazette dated October 24, 1952 were as
under: -
The Punjab Government is constructing a New
Capital named “Chandigarh”. The Master Plan
providing for the future extension of the Capital, will
extend over a much greater area than the area
acquired so far for the construction of the first phase
of the capital. To ensure healthy and planned
development of the new city, it is necessary to prevent
growth of slums and ramshackle construction on the
land lying on the periphery of the new city. To
achieve this objective, it is necessary to have legal
authority to regulate the use of the said land for
purposes other than the purposes for which it is used
at present.
Thus, the Act aims at achieving the following objectives:
i) To control and regulate the periphery of the new Capital City.
ii) To ensure healthy and planned development of the new city.
iii) To prevent the growth of slums and to eliminate chances of any haphazard and
unplanned development in the periphery.
iv) To freeze the land use in the peripheral area (which was at that time primarily
agricultural) and to retain its basic character.

3. 3
v) To stop conversion of land use into uses other than agriculture or subservient to
agriculture.
vi) To provide ample area free from all encumbrances for future growth,
development and expansion of the new city.
vii) To identify the area which will cater to the basic and day to day needs of
agriculture, dairy, poultry and other products of the Capital city.
viii) To clearly demarcate the functions of the Capital City and its periphery for
evolving harmonious relationship between the two.
ix) To provide a legal framework for achieving the above objectives.
x) To channelise growth and development in the identified areas only.
2.2 The main provisions of the Act for controlling and regulating the periphery of the city
are as under: -
i) Peripheral limit notified under section 3(1) of the city initially extended up to 5
miles on all sides from the outer boundary of the land acquired for the Capital
City. The limit was extended to 10 miles by a subsequent amendment in 1962
because of “swift urbanization, coming up of cantonment, air force station and
the Hindustan Machine Tools Factory.
ii) A plan showing the area declared to be controlled area along with the nature of
restrictions applicable in the area is to be prepared and published under section
4.
iii) Subject to the provisions and restrictions provided in the Controlled Area Plan,
every person would require prior approval of the Deputy commissioner under
section 5 for the following: -
a) To erect or re-erect building.
b) To make or extend any excavations.
c) To layout any means of access to a road.
One would have to approach Deputy Commissioner under section 6 for permission
who may or may not grant permission or grant permission subject to certain conditions.
Conditions imposed should be reasonable and in the interest of the general public.
But permission would not be refused in the following cases: -
i) For erection of re-erection of a building which is required for the purposes
which are subservient to agriculture.
ii) For erection or re-erection of a building which existed on the day when area
was declared as controlled area under section 3(2).
iii) In both the cases, no condition will be imposed while granting the permission
except to ensure that applicant does not misuse or change the use of a building.

4. 4
The necessary permission or refusal shall be communicated within a period of 3
months of the date of application and if no such communication is sent by the
Deputy Commissioner, the permission shall be deemed to have been granted
without prejudice to the restrictions signified in the plan prepared under
section 4. In order to ensure compliance and to check the conversion of land
use, Deputy Commissioner would maintain proper record of all the permissions
granted or refused by him. Any person aggrieved by the refusal to grant
permission by the Deputy Commissioner may appeal to Commissioner under
section 7 of the Act within 60 days and the order so passed shall be final.
Persons who have been refused permission or granted conditional permission
and who have suffered any damages, injury or loss can seek compensation
under section 8 and the decision on this will be taken by an Arbitrator
appointed by the government under section 9.
iv) The government has been given power and authority under section 10 to
acquire land or to impose restrictions upon the use and development of the land
falling in the controlled area under any other law operative in the state.
v) Power to grant permission to change use of land for purposes other than on the
date of notification is vested exclusively in the government under section 11 of
the Act. Only after the change in land use is permitted by the government,
Deputy Commissioner can grant permission for setting up of charcoal kiln,
pottery kiln, lime-kiln. Brick-kiln, equipment for manufacturing surkhi or
crushing stone.
vi) Section-12 lays down penalty for offences committed by any person who
unauthorizedly constructs building, changes its use, violates the provision of
controlled area plan or conditions imposed while granting sanction, lays down
means of access without permission etc. The Penalty may be imprisonment up
to 2 years or maximum fine of Rs.5000 and in case of continue violation then
further fine of Rs.500/- for every day of persisted violation.
vii) However, following operations have been exempted from the provisions of the
Act under section 15.
a) Construction of any building for residential purposes or for purposes
subservient to agriculture in the Abadi Area of the village as defined in
the revenue record.
b) Erection or re-erection of a place of worship, tomb, cenotaph or a wall
enclosing a graveyard, place of worship, cenotaph or samadhi on a land
which existed as such on the date of notification of Controlled Area.
c) Digging of wells or other excavations made in the ordinary course of
agricultural operations.
d) The construction of un-metalled road for providing access to the land
exclusively for agricultural purposes.

5. 5
2.3 Under section 4(1), plan of the Controlled Area has been prepared which provides for
the following: -
i) A belt of 300 feet depth on either sides all along the important roads falling in
the Controlled Area has been marked and the belt has been named as
“Communication Zone” in which uses subservient to the rail and road
transportation are permitted. No other use or construction is permitted in this
area.
ii) Brick-kiln zones have been earmarked where brick-kiln are permitted under a
licnece given by Deputy Commissioner.
iii) Rest of the area has been earmarked as Agricultural and Afforestation Zone in
which broadly operations connected with and pertaining to agriculture have
been permitted.
2.4 However, in order to permit certain uses within the controlled area, Capital Project
Administration (which was responsible for managing the city planning and
development) issued detailed instructions in October 1966 for the change in land use
under section 11 of the Act. The uses permitted were:
i) Construction of residential houses within the extended abadi area of the village
but no such construction should come within the communication zone.
ii) Farm houses are permitted but in the belt beyond 5 miles, whereas within the
first 5 mile area of the periphery, no farmhouse is permitted. These farmhouses
are permitted subject to the following conditions: -
a) No farmhouses to be constructed within 300 feet of National, State
Highways and 100 feet from link or approach road.
b) Farmhouse of type ‘A’ covering 1500 sq.ft. area for landholding of 5-10
acres was allowed.
c) Farmhouse of type ‘B’ covering 2000 sq.ft. area for land holding of 10-
15 acre was allowed.
d) Farmhouse of type ‘C’ with area 2500 sq.ft. for landholding above 15
acres was allowed.
e) Design of farmhouse should conform to the design prepared by the
Chief Architect of Chandigarh or by a qualified Architect.
iii) Cattle sheds of standard size and of standard designs depending upon the area
of the owner were permitted beyond 300 ft. of important roads and 100 ft. of
link or approach roads.
iv) No dairy farm was allowed within first 5 miles belt of the periphery. Dairy
farms of standard size and standard designs were freely permitted beyond 5

6. 6
miles belt subject to the conditions of 300 ft. and 100 ft. distance from
important and village roads.
v) Small sized poultry sheds conforming to the standard designs were allowed in
the first 5 miles belt. Large sized sheds were allowed only in the 5-10 miles belt
subject to the usual conditions of the distance from the road.
vi) Tube wells of standard design were allowed to all farmers owning more than 2
acres of land and beyond 300 ft./100ft. distance from important/ village roads.
However, no private tube well was allowed in the city area enclosed by the first
and second phase of Chandigarh by the Patiala-ki-Rao and Sukhna lake.
3.0 JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
3.1 Ever since the peripheral area of Chandigarh came under enormous pressure, large
scale construction activities started in the controlled area. Most of these were
unauthorized construction. Persecutions were launched and the subject matter came
under close scrutiny of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana States and later on even
in the Apex Court (Supreme Court) of the country. The judgment delivered by the
court helped in both enlarging and clearly defining the scope of various provisions of
the Act. Courts upheld the validity of the Act and also declared it non-violative of the
fundamental rights of individuals. The important and landmark judgments pronounced
by
different courts are as under:
a) In the case of Sham Lal Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh in CWP 6735 of 1974
it has been held that;
i) The scope of sections 5 and 6 is quite limited as it
empowers the Deputy Commissioner to grant or refuse the
permission of putting the land situated in the controlled
area only to three specific uses. Whereas section 11 has
got much wider scope. Whenever it is intended to put the
land to any kind of use other than those mentioned in
sections 5 and 6, the permission has to be obtained for the
same from the State/ Central Government, as the case may
be. Further, sections 5 and 6 are independent and are not
subservient and controlled by section 11.
b) In Sada Nand Vs. State of Punjab in CWP 515 of 1977 it has been held
that;
i) If no permission is granted by the competent authority
within the stipulated period of 3 months even then deemed
permission shall be considered unauthorized if the
construction is not in accordance with the plans and
restrictions operative within the Controlled Area.

7. 7
ii) Any construction which falls within 300 ft. of the PWD
boundary of Chandigarh-Kharar Road (Communication
Zone) shall be considered unauthorized.
iii) Even if the provision of section 4(1) regarding preparing
plan of Controlled Area is not complied with, the
notification issued with regard to declaration of the
controlled area under the Act does not become invalid or
unenforceable.
iv) Abadi area of a village means area within Lal Lakir which
is covered under one khasra number constituted at the time
of settlement and whose ownership is joint of all the
residents of the village including the owners of agricultural
land.
v) The Act was in force when the erstwhile state of Punjab was
reorganized into state of Punjab, Haryana and Union
Territory of Chandigarh. Under section 88 of the Punjab
Reorganization Act 1966, the Act continues to remain in
force even after November 1, 1966, whether or not its
adoption is notified by the state of Punjab.
vi) No person by making an unauthorized construction in
violation of section 5 of the Act be taken to have acquired a
right to retain it.
vii) Section 12(2) which provides for an action for undoing the
illegality committed by those who raised construction in
violation of section 5 and without permission under section
6 is not volatile of Article 20(1) of the constitution.
In the case M/s Modern Planners, Kharar Vs State of Punjab in CWP No.5/89 of 1989
in the Punjab and Haryana High Court it has been held that;
Obtaining a licence for establishing a colony was
patently clandestine and in violation of the provisions of
the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952,
where-under no colony can be allowed to be set up within
the periphery of the New Capital which is Chandigarh.
4.0 PRESENT STATUS OF PERIPHERY
4.1 The peripheral area which was notified under the provisions of the Punjab New Capital
(Periphery) Control Act in the year 1952 fell entirely in the state of Punjab. Due to
geo-political changes in 1966, arising out of re-organization of the state of Punjab into

8. 8
states of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh, the Capital City was
given an independent status. It’s periphery was divided between three constituent
states, Maximum portion of periphery went to state of Punjab whereas Chandigarh and
Haryana were vested with comparatively smaller proportions of the area.
4.2 Since Chandigarh was made an independent entity and also became joint capital of
Punjab and Haryana, the city came under enormous population and developmental
pressure. It recorded highest growth rate (140%) during 1961-71 decade among all the
class-I cities of the country. Further, not only the city came under population pressure
but its periphery also became ripe for development. In order to take advantage of the
developmental potential, state of Punjab and Haryana set up new townships of Mohali
(3.5 lakh population) and Panchkula (1.5 lakh) within the peripheral area of new
capital city falling in the respective states. Thus started an unending process of
exploitation of periphery which went on gaining momentum with the passage of time.
Large scale unplanned and unauthorized colonies and structures came up in the area.
Periphery being fragmented, lost its relevance, with Chandigarh going out of the
purview of respective states. Both the states wanted to cash on the proximity to
Chandigarh. Instead of regulating and channelising the growth and development into
the existing settlements the effort was directed to set up new townships. In addition to
Panchkula, Haryana set up Mansa Devi complex, planned huge expansion of
Panchkula besides setting up number of other complexes. Punjab, on the other hand,
notified huge area measuring. 2088 acres and comprising 23 villages as Free Enterprise
Zone (FEZ) where industrial units were given the permission of change of land use to
convert agricultural land into industrial use. Large number of brick-kiln and stone
crushers came to be set up in area outside the brick-kiln zone. However, maximum
violations occurred within the communication zone where large scale ribbon
development came. Large number of unauthorized residential colonies also
mushroomed in the Controlled Area.
4.3 The extent and magnitude of unauthorized constructions can be gauged from the fact
that during the last 10 years, 6883 cases of unauthorized constructions have been
detected in the state of Punjab alone. Show cause notices have been issued in all the
6883 cases, Opportunity of being heard have only been granted to 1045 cases whereas
5883 cases are pending for want of hearing. Demolition orders have been issued in 594
cases and in only 160 cases demolition has actually been carried out. Another 5 cases

9. 9
are pending in various courts for hearing and disposal. Thus it can be seen that the
peripheral area has been violated with impunity and the Act has lost much of its
relevance. The conditions of periphery area falling in the state of Haryana and
Chandigarh Union Territory are no better.
5 CONCLUSION
5.1 Causes
5.1.1 Corbusier said that city and periphery are two distinct but closely related and inter-
dependent entities. Both have different functions to perform. In order to maintain the
distinction and to allow healthy growth of both the city and periphery, their functions
must not interchange. City should continue to provide services and periphery the day to
day needs of the agricultural, dairy and poultry products.
5.1.2 It any attempt is made to interchange the functions then anarchy will prevail. In order
to keep this distinction, the Periphery Control Act was enacted. However, considering
the magnitude of unauthorized structures coming up in the area (as mentioned in para
4.3) one could visualize that the basic objectives of the Act have by and large been
defeated. Basic reason to which this cause can be attributed are as under: -
i) Sub-division of the periphery into Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh
administrations.
ii) Lack of will on the part of concerned governments to enforce the provisions of
the Act.
iii) Setting up of large number of new townships in different states.
iv) Attempt to maximize profit out of the periphery by converting the area from
agricultural to non-agricultural uses.
v) Violation of the Act with impunity by the different government departments in
particular by industries department by declaring the periphery as an Incentive
Zone for setting up of industries and declaring large area as Free Enterprise
Zone for promoting industrial growth.
vi) Absence of proper machinery to enforce different provisions of the Act.
vii) Dual management control of the periphery vested in the Director Housing and
concerned Deputy Commissioners, resulting in duplication and overlapping,
leading to non-implementation of the Act.
viii) Gross misuse of powers vested under section 11 of the Act by the government
by liberal grant of permission to change of land use from agricultural to non-
agricultural purposes.

10. 10
ix) Violation of the provisions of the Act by the Deputy Commissioners by
granting liberal permissions to set up large number of residential colonies in the
periphery.
x) Absence of any technical manpower, proper machinery to regulate and control
development with Deputy Commissioners who has been vested with the powers
to enforce the provisions of the Act.
xi) Lack of staff to launch proceedings against violators of the Act and connivance
of the staff with people have encouraged large scale unauthorized construction.
xii) No demolition squads provided to carry out demolition of unauthorized
construction. Absence of any equipment to carry out the demolitions.
xiii) Grant of liberal loans and other financial aids by the public sector financial
institutions to the industrial units coming up in the periphery.
xiv) Grant of liberal licenses and registration of industrial units in the periphery
besides issuing large number of clearances to these units.
xv) No consistent policy followed or guidelines evolved by different state level
agencies regarding permission of change of land use.
5.12 However, the root cause of the problem lies in the plan of the periphery controlled area
which have been prepared under section 4 of the Act. In the plan, effort has been made
to freeze the entire area by declaring it as Agriculture and Afforestation Zone, except
the Communication Zone identified along the important roads in the area. Since the
periphery was to come under the developmental pressure, the pressure could very well
be absorbed within the existing settlements in the periphery if the developmental forces
could be channelised in them. Unfortunately, the Act has been considered a highly
negative kind of instrument to stop any growth and development in the area. I feel that
large number of regional and other uses should have been permitted in the area to take
care of the developmental pressure. There is no consistent policy on the part of the
growth in the area. States of Punjab and Haryana and Chandigarh Union Territory
should have co-ordinated their efforts in order to promote orderly growth in the area.
The root-cause of the problem lies in the sub-division of the periphery into the
constituent states. During re-organization of the state of Punjab in 1966 the entire
periphery should have been put with Chandigarh and no fragmentation should have
been allowed. Separation of the city from its periphery has led to the large number of
maladies which have plagued the area.

11. 11
5.13 The entire belt of 16 kms has been considered as one unit for development controls
without bothering about the developmental potential of the area. In order to effectively
manage and control the peripheral area it would have been more appropriate to divide
it into different zones, depending upon the distance from the mother city and each such
zone could be subjected to different management and development controls. The belt
closer to the city could be subjected to stricter developmental control so as to retain the
basic characteristics of the area whereas the belt away from the city could be given
more flexibility in the permitted uses. Such an approach would have served the dual
purpose of not only safeguarding the city area from the developmental forces but also
absorbing developmental pressures within the periphery without changing its basic
character.
5.14 Since human settlements grow both in size and population, adequate provision for
absorbing this growth should have been inbuilt within the planning process. All towns
and villages falling in periphery should have been studied in light of possible effects of
capital city’s growth on these settlements. Such an approach would have effectively
guided and channelized the developmental forces within the existing settlements
without the need for establishment of new towns/ settlements. In the absence of such
mechanism, the settlements have shown erratic trends in planned growth and
development. In case of villages, because of non-expansion of village boundary (Lal-
Lakir), large scale developments have occurred on the outskirts of the village abadi.
The village have recorded manifold growth. In the absence of adequate land within the
village abadi area, larger scale violations of the Act have taken place. Redefining the
village abadi area would have, by and large, regulated the development in and around
the village area. Further, it would be desirable that abadi area and the uses permitted
therein should also be subjected to close scrutiny and strict control. In the absence of
such control mechanism, large scale non-conforming changes in land uses within the
villages have defeated the basic objectives of the Act.
6. POST SCRIPT – PERIPHERY REVISITED
6.1 This paper was written in the early nineties. With last decade witnessing enormous
changes, both qualitative and quantitative, not only in the structure and fabric of the
capital city of Chandigarh but also in its periphery, situation has gone from bad to
worse with greater exploitation of periphery area for urbanization and urban related

12. 12
uses. 1991 witnessed Chandigarh achieving its targeted population of 0.5 million by
recording 5,10,565 persons with a growth rate of 34.48%, becoming the only city to
achieve the planned population within 4 decades of its launching. Population target
was overshot in 2001 when Chandigarh Urban Agglomeration recorded population of 8
lakh with density placed at 7903 persons per square km, second in the country after
Delhi. Slum population also kept date with the city growth and 2001 placed this figure
at 1,07,098 with every eighth resident of the city having a sub-standard living.
Population in rural areas also did not lag behind but on the contrary recorded much
faster and accelerated growth as compared to its urban counterpart with figures racing
from 66,186 in 1991 to 92,118 in 2001. this unprecedented growth had its adverse
impact on the quality of periphery and its role as the feeding area for the mother city of
Chandigarh.
6.2 Rapid growth was not only confined to Chandigarh and its periphery controlled area,
urban settlements and periphery area falling in state of Punjab (74%) and Haryana
(22%) also followed the same pattern. They were the outcome of more planned and
unplanned development undertaken by both parastatal agencies and people at large.
Haryana state gave impetus to the process by revising its periphery controlled area plan
with large area earmarked for future urbanization covering area beyond Ghaggar River,
which now houses Panchkula extension. Number of colonies also came to be approved
which further eroded the sancity of Periphery Controlled Area. Liberal change in land
use in the area was allowed subject to the payment of the conversion fee and guidelines
laid down by the state. Periphery thus became a controlled area where all uses came to
be permitted subject to prior approval of the state government which has changed the
original tenor, intent and content of the area.
6.3 State of Punjab has shown more innovations and played greater proactive role in
making numerous uses of the potential of the Periphery Controlled Area. Under
pressure from property dealers, land owners lobby and large number of people who
had made constructions illegally in the periphery, state government decided to
regularize all illegal structures which came up prior to December 8, 1998 without
making a distinction whether they were residential, commercial, industrial or
institutional in nature and whether or not they were in the forest areas or in the
communication zone. Thus thousands of unauthorized and illegal structures, most of
which were sub-standard, became legal overnight. Creation of Zirakpur Nagar

13. 13
Panchayat further helped in regularization of another bunch of illegal structures, which
came up in contravention of the Act. It appears strange that an illegal and unauthorized
structure becomes both legal and authorized if the nature of area is changed form rural
to urban. This innovation became a potent weapon to defeat the provisions of the
Periphery Controlled Area. In the process urban limits of both Dera Bassi and Kharar
towns were expanded with people around Punjab Engineering college demanding the
area to be brought under municipal body.
6.4 State of Punjab again decided to regularize all illegal structures, which came up
between December 8, 1998, and November 3, 2001 besides creating a Nagar Panchayat
for the Naya Gaon area but in a public interest litigation, Punjab & Haryana High
Court has stayed the operation of these decisions. Periodic regularization of
unauthorized constructions has resulted in land speculation and sub-division of land on
massive scale within the periphery area in general and area around Chandigarh & SAS
Nagar in particular. These decisions have virtually destroyed the sanctity of the Act.
Today the periphery area in Punjab is littered with thousands of substandard structures
placed in the most unplanned manner with speculators, landowners and people
becoming all the more daring by undertaking and raising unauthorized structures on
day-to-day basis.
6.5 In order to regulate the future development around SAS Nagar, 19942 Hectare of area
falling in periphery has been declared as planning area under the Punjab Regional and
Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, for which the master plan is under
preparation. In the process SAS Nagar would be extended to 106 Sectors with large
periphery area getting converted into urban usages. Similarly Zirakpur planning area
would also impinge on the periphery to bring it into urban fold. State government has
also accepted in principle to liberalize the policy of permitting farm houses, setting up
of institutions and recreation parks within periphery area close to the urban limits
within first 5 mile belt which in turn would see large scale conversion of land in this
zone. Development of 1 million Anandgarh new city in close vicinity of Chandigarh,
which has been stayed by the court, would have opened a new chapter in the chequerd
history of Periphery Controlled Area.
6.6 Looking at the present day scenario it becomes obvious that with the state governments
getting very liberal in granting permission of change in land use to individuals,
permitting development by parastatal agencies and using laxity in controlling

14. 14
unauthorized development, the Periphery Controlled Area has emerged area for future
urbanization. Development is bound to come with pace of development getting
accelerated over the years. The entire approach to managing the periphery area would
have to be changed. From conservation it has to be development oriented with
emphasis laid on the planned development. Thus there is an urgent need to ensure that
future development in the area is both orderly and planned and it focuses on few
potential areas rather that on the entire periphery. The periphery controlled area plan
would require a re-visit by the experts. The plan would require modification keeping in
view the ground realities. This plan cannot be evolved individually and exclusively by
partner states and union territory. It has to be done collectively so that it can be
effectively implemented. The content & intent of the plan would need drastic change.
It should identify potential areas for future urbanization, area to be preserved and
conserved, areas fit for agriculture & aforestation and area where large sized
institutions having low demand for built up area could be located. Policy of change in
land use would require a critical review and should be uniformly made applicable in
the entire periphery. It should aim at promoting preservation of the character of the
periphery rather than allowing haphazard and unauthorized growth in an isolated
manner. Once the Periphery Controlled Area Plan and related policies are put in place
then its implementation will have to be ensured jointly and collectively with violators
punished in an exemplary manner. Special courts will have to be set up for speedier
disposal of cases. Any further laxity in the unauthorized development can have a far
reaching implications not only on the development of the capital city of Chandigarh,
but also on new cities of SAS Nagar and Panchkula. Future of these new unique and
innovative urban developments clearly hinges on how effectively we are able to
manage and promote orderly growth and development of the periphery controlled area.
Sooner we better do it would be.
Note; The article was written more than 40 years back. Context and facts have undergone
total change. As it stands today, Mohali has a Regional Plan in place, covering large
proportion of periphery making it urban; Panchkula also covers the entire area falling in
Haryana periphery as urban. Chandigarh has also included the entire 44 sq km of area of
Periphery in the municipal limits, making it urban. Entire area of 1430 sq kms of
Chandigarh now stands urbanized, contrary to the very concept of creating a periphery.

15. 15
Chandigarh periphery is fast emerging as the hot bed of urbanization in the north of Delhi
as the largest urban complex. By 2050, the conglomerate is estimated to have a population
in the range of 4-5 million. Concept of periphery raises few serious questions which need to
be answered and addressed on priority.