A year-old property dispute in Nayagaon has snowballed into a confrontation between councillors and officials of the Municipal Council, prompting an unprecedented special meeting on August 28. Councillors have invoked Section 25(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 — a provision never used before in Nayagaon — to convene the session, bypassing the usual practice where only the president or executive officer (EO) calls meetings.The row dates back to 2020 when a house owner complained that a five-storey building constructed by his neighbour, Sonia, had caused cracks in his property.The Naya Gaon Municipal Council issued demolition notices to Sonia under the Punjab Municipal Act, 2011, on August 27, 2020, and December 28, 2020.Challenging these notices, Sonia approached multiple forums on different dates, including the Kharar Court, Mohali District Court, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court.She later withdrew her case from the High Court, stating that she intended to file an appeal. Following this, Sonia moved both an appeal and a revision petition before the Additional Chief Secretary (Local Bodies). These were decided on August 12, 2024, and November 20, 2024, respectively.Subsequently, Sonia filed another appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Urban Development). On March 24, 2025, the ADC directed that “all concerned parties must be heard” and referred the matter back to the Naya Gaon Municipal Council for fresh proceedings. Since then, hearings have been ongoing before the council.Following the ADC’s directive, multiple hearings were held. At the August 8 meeting, attended by 11 councillors, both parties were heard. It was unanimously resolved that any illegal construction would be removed.Story continues below this adHowever, when the official order was issued on August 20, it completely contradicted the discussion held in the August 8 meeting, sparking outrage among councillors.Instead of reaffirming the earlier finding against Sonia, the August 20 order blamed the complainant, stating that the cracks appeared because of his own building and not Sonia’s construction.Councillors Gurpreet Singh Pappi, Avtar Singh Tari, Pramod Kumar, Kulbir Bisht, and Mamta Kaushik termed the order “contradictory” and demanded clarity on how the decision was reversed.“The August 20 order is the exact opposite of what was discussed in the House. We need to know who is responsible for this,” one councillor said.Story continues below this adCouncillors allege that the EO and the Council President are shifting blame onto each other over the disputed proceedings, making a special session necessary to fix accountability.The upcoming August 28 meeting is expected to decide whether the August 20 order stands or if a new course of action will be taken.