Panchkula’s proposal to convert part of the seasonal Singh Nullah into an artificial lake has exposed a larger urban governance problem: the city is considering a new waterfront project while a ₹95.4-crore plan to rejuvenate the same drainage system is already being executed by the Panchkula Metropolitan Development Authority. The disagreement is not only about whether the nullah can hold water. It is also about who should control the corridor, what water infrastructure should prioritise, and whether separate civic visions are being developed for the same urban asset.
According to a report by The Times of India, Mayor Sham Lal has proposed dividing the 5.3-km seasonal nullah. The first 2 km, running through residential areas, would remain a seasonal choe, with a gate intended to divert rainwater for gardening. The stretch beyond that point, up to the Zirakpur border, would be converted into a water-filled recreational zone. Four new tubewells and pipelines carrying tertiary water from parks would be used to fill the channel, while a concrete barrier would retain the water. The proposed attractions include boating, theme parks and shops.
The Singh Nullah passes through Sectors 1, 2, 4, 12 and 12-A, as well as the Industrial Area, before entering Zirakpur. Its existing form is seasonal, meaning that its role is closely linked to the movement of rainwater rather than the permanent storage of water. The mayor told TOI that the lake proposal could coexist with the PMDA’s work and said the entire nullah could first be developed before being converted into a lake. He also said he was taking up the matter with the state government and that the project could be built by the PMDA, the municipal corporation or both jointly.
That proposed sequencing is central to the dispute. The PMDA has already allotted work for the ₹95.4-crore Jal Dhara project, which covers the full 5.3-km Singh Nullah and another 5.6-km nullah running from Mata Mansa Devi Mandir to Rajeev-Indira Colony. The reported project is designed around drainage improvement and public-realm upgrades rather than permanent water storage. Its engineering components include a 1.5-metre-wide precast central channel, reinforced cement concrete retaining walls and galvanised iron fencing.
The same project also includes walking and cycling tracks, street lighting, green belts and steel bridges. Its listed recreational facilities are a cafeteria, 10 badminton courts, six yoga courts, two volleyball courts, two half basketball courts, a skating rink and two children’s play areas. In other words, the PMDA’s project already combines infrastructure and recreation. The mayor’s proposal therefore introduces a question of additionality: whether a permanent lake would provide a distinct civic function or repackage an already approved corridor improvement project around a different water concept.
The institutional overlap is equally important. The PMDA was established to undertake large-scale development projects in Panchkula, while the municipal corporation is responsible for local civic administration. The mayor’s proposal that either authority, or both jointly, could build the lake has not been accompanied in the supplied report by a publicly stated division of responsibilities, funding arrangement, operating model or revised project design. Without those details, the dispute remains less about a finalised lake project than about competing approaches to the same public corridor.
The criticism from residents and civic observers focuses first on water. Mohit Gupta, founder of Solution Box, questioned the proposal to build tubewells when the city is already facing a drinking-water shortage. He also warned that the use of tertiary water could create foul odours. These objections connect the lake proposal to a basic urban services question: whether treated wastewater should be used for a recreational waterbody, and what treatment, circulation and maintenance systems would be required to keep it usable.
The supplied report does not establish the proposed tubewells’ capacity, the volume of water needed to fill the channel, the quality standards for the tertiary water, or the operating cost of maintaining the lake. It also does not provide an assessment of how the proposed barrier would interact with the nullah’s seasonal drainage function. Those gaps matter because a channel designed to carry rainwater and a waterbody designed for boating do not necessarily have the same engineering requirements. The lake proposal, as reported, remains a concept under discussion rather than an approved technical design.
The odour concern also mirrors the problem the Jal Dhara project is intended to address. The PMDA project is meant to tackle stagnant water, foul smells, mosquito breeding and illegal garbage dumping. A permanent or semi-permanent waterbody could improve the visual identity of the corridor only if the water remains clean and adequately managed. If water stagnates or the inflow is contaminated, the same corridor could retain or reproduce the nuisance conditions the rejuvenation project seeks to remove. The report does not indicate whether a separate environmental or public-health assessment has been completed for the proposed lake.
The second set of questions concerns the relationship between drainage and public space. The Jal Dhara design appears to treat the nullahs as civic corridors that require a defined channel, retaining structures, fencing, lighting and accessible recreational facilities. This model attempts to make infrastructure visible and usable without changing the basic drainage identity of the sites. The lake proposal would shift part of that identity towards waterfront tourism, with boating, theme parks and shops.
That shift has implications for land use and management. A walking track or green belt can be planned around a drainage corridor with one set of access and maintenance requirements. Boating facilities, shops and theme parks would require additional safety arrangements, water-quality monitoring, commercial management and rules for public access. The supplied material does not state whether these requirements have been assessed or whether the PMDA’s awarded work would need modification. It also does not identify the estimated cost of the lake plan or explain how it would be financed.
The location adds another layer. The Singh Nullah crosses several developed sectors before entering Zirakpur, which means that decisions made within Panchkula may affect a corridor that continues across an urban boundary. A barrier near the Zirakpur border and the retention of water within the Panchkula stretch would need to be understood in relation to downstream movement during rainfall. The report does not provide a hydrological assessment or the views of Zirakpur authorities, so the cross-boundary implications remain unresolved in the available evidence.
The debate also illustrates how urban projects can become fragmented when different institutions work on the same physical system. The PMDA has an already allotted project with defined civil works and amenities. The municipal leadership is advancing a separate idea that would alter the use of part of the same nullah. Even where both proposals are described as compatible, compatibility has to be demonstrated through a common plan, technical drawings, responsibilities and approvals. Otherwise, the city risks developing multiple project narratives around one corridor without a clear implementation framework.
This is not an argument against public spaces or water-based recreation. It is a question of sequencing and institutional clarity. The Jal Dhara project already incorporates public amenities alongside drainage improvements. The mayor’s proposal adds a more ambitious water-recreation model, but the available information does not show whether its water source, storage method, ecological safeguards, construction cost or operating authority have been finalised. The difference between a landscaped drain and an artificial lake is therefore not merely visual. It involves a different set of technical, financial and administrative obligations.
For residents, the immediate issue is whether the Singh Nullah will become cleaner, safer and more usable, or whether the corridor will be caught between two incomplete plans. The reported concerns about drinking-water shortages, tertiary-water odour and institutional jurisdiction are practical questions, not abstract policy disagreements. They relate directly to how the city manages scarce water, prevents nuisance conditions and assigns responsibility for public infrastructure.
The evidence currently confirms three facts: the mayor has proposed an artificial lake on part of the Singh Nullah; the PMDA has already allotted a ₹95.4-crore Jal Dhara project covering the full nullah and another drainage corridor; and named critics have raised concerns about water availability, odour and institutional overlap. What remains unclear is whether the lake proposal has technical approval, how it would be funded, whether it would alter the PMDA’s awarded design and which agency would operate it. The next decisive development will be the state government’s response and any formal joint plan issued by the municipal corporation and the PMDA.
