Controversy Over Haryana’s Land Allocation in Chandigarh; Calls for Returning Chandigarh to Punjab

Chandigarh: The Haryana government’s decision to allocate 10 acres of land in Chandigarh for the new Haryana Assembly building has sparked strong opposition from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and several other political groups. The AAP is demanding the return of Chandigarh to Punjab, arguing that it is not just a piece of land but a matter tied to the emotions of the 3 crore Punjabis.

AAP spokesperson Neel Garg accused the BJP-led central government of plotting against Punjab and warned that playing with the emotions of Punjabis would not be tolerated. Garg reiterated that Chandigarh should be handed over to Punjab as promised during the separation of Haryana in 1966. He called on all political parties in Punjab, especially opposition parties, to unite and demand the fulfillment of this long-standing promise.

Punjab BJP President Sunil Jakhar also expressed his concerns, urging Prime Minister Narendra Modi to intervene and reconsider the decision to allocate 10 acres of land in Chandigarh to Haryana for the construction of its assembly building. Jakhar commended the AAP for raising their voices on this issue, highlighting the significance of Chandigarh to Punjab’s history, culture, and identity.

The AAP further emphasized that Chandigarh was created from 22 villages in Punjab’s Kharar region, and therefore, its rightful ownership lies with Punjab. They accused the BJP government of deliberately creating this controversy, and warned that the people of Punjab would not accept such decisions.

Punjab Government’s Reminder of Past Promises
Garg also pointed out that during the bifurcation of Punjab and Haryana, it was promised that once Haryana established its own capital, Chandigarh would be returned to Punjab. He urged the central government to honor this commitment and return Chandigarh to Punjab. Garg questioned why the new assembly building could not be constructed in Panchkula instead.

The Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) has also opposed the decision, calling it unconstitutional. SAD leaders argue that such a decision violates Article 3 of the Constitution, which grants the power to alter state boundaries only to the Parliament. They have urged the central government to revoke this decision immediately.