Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s continuing scrutiny of encroachments on roads leading towards Shimla Airport has once again brought into focus the widening gap between planned development and what is taking place on the ground, with the State now informing the court that several encroachments have either been removed or are in the process of being cleared.
In its latest order in the suo motu PIL, Court on its own motion versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others (CWPIL No. 71 of 2025), the Division Bench headed by Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi was informed that, on the Phayal-Rampuri via Matholi stretch, two of three identified encroachments had been voluntarily removed while notice had been served on the third encroacher. On the Jaithia Devi-Rampuri stretch, five encroachments were identified; two had been partially removed and notices issued to the remaining three. The Court directed the State to take effective steps to remove the encroachments before the next hearing on December 7.
The Court’s intervention assumes greater importance because the roads connecting the airport are increasingly witnessing construction activity, roadside development and traffic pressure. The larger question is not merely whether a few encroachments are removed, but how such construction is allowed to come up in the first place in an area where road width, safety and airport-related restrictions should demand stricter planning control.
The concern is particularly relevant against the backdrop of allegations and official scrutiny surrounding land transactions in the Gagal Airport area. The State has recently initiated a vigilance investigation into alleged irregularities in land transactions around the proposed airport expansion, including suspected benami ownership and questionable land purchases.
There is also a historical dimension. An earlier High Court case concerning land adjoining Gagal Airport recorded that large quantities of debris had been dumped during airport construction on land exchanged by the government, preventing the beneficiary from undertaking construction.
This raises a broader environmental and administrative question. While airport construction has brought connectivity and development, surrounding communities have also faced soil erosion, muck dumping and loss of access to pasture land. Where private or community land has been used for dumping construction material, questions naturally arise over compensation, restoration and accountability.
The present situation therefore calls for more than periodic anti-encroachment drives. The authorities need to establish whether construction along airport connecting roads has complied with TCP norms, road setbacks and other applicable restrictions, and whether adequate drainage and slope-protection measures have accompanied the rapid construction.
The High Court’s intervention now provides an opportunity for the government to examine the entire corridor as a planning and environmental issue rather than treating encroachments as isolated violations.
About the Author
