Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses to Permit Conversion of Completed Hotel into Commercial Building; Holds 2025 Building Rules Cannot Be Invoked Post-Construction
Case Name: Chopra Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Jalandhar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 16 March 2026
Citation: CWP-5839-2026
Bench: Justice Harsh Bunger
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that once a hotel building has already been constructed and a completion certificate has been sought under the earlier building bye-laws, the owner cannot subsequently seek approval of a revised building plan to convert the hotel into a commercial building by relying upon later building rules. The Court further held that the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025 could not be invoked, particularly when their operation had already been kept in abeyance by the Court and the construction had been completed under the earlier regulatory regime.
Summary: The petitioners, including Chopra Hotels Pvt. Ltd., approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking quashing of several orders issued by the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar and the State authorities. They also sought a direction to reconsider a revised building plan dated 13.02.2026 under the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025.
The dispute concerned a hotel building constructed on land situated at Police Lines, GT Road, Jalandhar. The land had earlier been converted from residential to commercial use in 2006, and the Municipal Corporation approved the building plan for a hotel in 2011. The sanctioned plan required a 20% front setback, which formed part of the conditions under the then-applicable building bye-laws.
Construction of the hotel was completed in 2024 and the petitioners applied for a completion certificate. However, during scrutiny it was discovered that the actual front setback was only 15.37% instead of the required 20%, leading to rejection of their request for relaxation by the authorities.
Meanwhile, a team from the Punjab Pollution Control Board inspected the premises and found several environmental violations, including non-operation of the sewage treatment plant and discharge of untreated wastewater into the municipal sewer. Consequently, directions were issued restraining the hotel from operating and electricity supply was disconnected.
Subsequent litigation reached the Supreme Court, which directed that the hotel remain non-functional until the National Green Tribunal considers the environmental issues, while permitting the associated newspaper printing press to continue operating.
In the present writ petition, the petitioners attempted to overcome the setback violation by invoking the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025, which reduced the required front setback for commercial buildings to 10%. They argued that their building, having a setback of more than 15%, should be permitted to be used as a commercial building instead of a hotel.
The State opposed the petition, contending that the 2025 Rules were already kept in abeyance by an earlier order of the High Court and that the petitioners could not retrospectively alter the approved usage of a fully constructed building.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition and refused to grant the relief sought by the petitioners.
The Court held that the request to convert the completed hotel building into a commercial building by relying on the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025 was legally untenable for several reasons.
First, the petitioners had obtained approval for construction of a hotel building in 2011 on the representation that the site satisfied the mandatory 20% front setback requirement. After construction was completed in 2024 and the completion plan was submitted, it emerged that the setback requirement had not been met. The authorities were therefore justified in refusing relaxation and requiring removal of the non-conforming construction.
Second, the Court noted that serious environmental compliance issues relating to the hotel were pending before the National Green Tribunal pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court. Entertaining the request for change of usage at this stage would indirectly interfere with those ongoing proceedings.
Third, the Court observed that the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025 were themselves under challenge and their operation had been kept in abeyance by a Division Bench of the High Court, meaning they could not be relied upon to regularize earlier violations.
Finally, even assuming the 2025 Rules applied, Rules 15 and 16 permitted revision of plans only in situations where construction had not commenced or was still ongoing. Since the hotel building had already been fully constructed and even operated, the petitioners could not seek change of usage through a revised plan.
Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to consideration of their revised building plan or conversion of the hotel building into a commercial building.