Green Park Colony Welfare Association President Davinder Mehta raises the issue of duplicate colony names and house numbers affecting residents.
Green Park Colony Welfare Association seeks investigation and correction of duplicate colony name and house numbering; residents say Municipal Corporation cannot evade responsibility
YAMUNANAGAR | PEN OF DEMOCRACY NEWS DESK
Thousands of residents are facing serious inconvenience because two separate residential colonies in the area reportedly carry the same name — Green Park Phase-II — while houses in both colonies also have identical numbering. The duplication has created confusion for residents, visitors, delivery personnel and service providers, with the Green Park Colony Welfare Association demanding an immediate inquiry and a permanent solution.
Residents say the problem has persisted because two different residential areas are operating under the same colony name and house numbers. According to the association, the situation is particularly problematic because people unfamiliar with the area often find it difficult to identify the correct address. This can lead to confusion in locating homes and may also create difficulties for postal services, courier deliveries, emergency services and other essential services.
Green Park Colony Welfare Association President Davinder Mehta said the issue had already been brought to the attention of Municipal Corporation Mayor Suman Bahmani through a memorandum submitted on July 20. The association had requested the Mayor to look into how two colonies could come up with the same name and why the house numbers in both areas were also duplicated.
Mehta said residents had requested a proper investigation to determine responsibility for the situation. They also proposed practical solutions to eliminate the confusion. One option suggested by the association is that the later-developed colony should be renamed Green Park Phase-III. Alternatively, if the colony name is retained, a fresh numbering system could be introduced in the newer area, beginning after the last house number of the already established Green Park Phase-II colony.
According to Mehta, the Mayor had assured residents that their problem would be examined and resolved. He said directions were also issued to the concerned Municipal Corporation officials following the submission of the memorandum.
However, the association now claims that officials have expressed their inability to resolve the issue. According to the association, Municipal Corporation officials have taken the position that the civic body neither established the colony nor allotted the house numbers and therefore cannot make changes in the matter.
Officials have reportedly also stated that there is no record of the newer colony being listed in the Municipal Corporation records under the name Green Park Phase-II. The association, however, has questioned this explanation and argued that the civic administration cannot simply distance itself from an issue affecting thousands of residents living within its jurisdiction.
Mehta said that once a residential colony has developed within an area under the Municipal Corporation’s jurisdiction, it is difficult to accept that the civic authorities would have no knowledge of its existence. He argued that the administration should examine the entire matter rather than simply stating that the colony was not developed or numbered by the Corporation.
“The Municipal Corporation cannot escape its responsibility merely by saying that it did not establish the colony or allot the numbers,” the association president said, stressing that residents are currently suffering because of the duplicate identification of the two areas.
The association has demanded that the Municipal Corporation conduct a detailed inquiry into the matter and establish how the second colony came to be known by the same name as an already existing residential area. It has also sought clarification regarding the process through which the colony was developed and how its addresses and house numbers came to resemble those of the older colony.
Residents believe that a clearly differentiated identity for the two colonies would provide an immediate solution. Renaming the later colony as Green Park Phase-III would, according to the association, eliminate much of the confusion. Another possibility would be to retain the existing name but introduce a distinct numbering system so that each house has a unique and easily identifiable address.
The issue is not limited to inconvenience in receiving mail or locating homes. Residents point out that accurate addresses are important for emergency response services. In situations requiring urgent police, ambulance or fire assistance, confusion over duplicate addresses could potentially result in delays. Similarly, online deliveries, utility-related services, official correspondence and visitors can all be affected when two separate locations have the same colony name and house numbers.
The association therefore believes that the matter should be treated as an administrative and public convenience issue rather than being left between residents and the original developer of the colony.
Mehta said residents have already approached the Mayor and are hopeful that the Municipal Corporation will reconsider the matter and conduct a proper investigation. He maintained that the administration should identify the circumstances under which the duplication occurred and then take corrective steps in consultation with residents.
He further said that the people living in both colonies should not be made to suffer indefinitely because of an issue involving the identification and numbering of the residential areas. According to him, the administration has the responsibility to ensure that addresses within its jurisdiction remain clear, distinguishable and practical for residents and public services.
The association has also questioned how a new residential area could continue functioning with an identity apparently identical to an established colony without the issue being resolved by the concerned authorities. It has called for accountability as well as a solution that is acceptable to residents of both areas.
The residents are now seeking a time-bound decision from the Municipal Corporation. They want the authorities to verify the records, inspect both colonies, establish their official status and determine an appropriate method for distinguishing their names and house numbers.
The controversy has also highlighted the importance of proper documentation and address management as urban areas continue to expand. Clear colony names and unique property numbers are essential not only for residents but also for municipal services, emergency response, public records and other government-related processes.
Mehta reiterated that the association’s objective is not to create a dispute but to ensure that the practical difficulties faced by residents are resolved. He said the matter can be settled through a transparent inquiry and consultation with the affected residents.
The Green Park Colony Welfare Association has therefore urged the Municipal Corporation to take the issue seriously, investigate the circumstances behind the duplicate colony name and numbering, and implement an administrative solution at the earliest.
Residents now await further action from the civic administration, particularly in view of the earlier assurance given by the Mayor. The association has made it clear that merely stating that the Corporation did not establish the colony or allot the numbers will not address the problem being faced by residents on the ground.
The demand is straightforward: either the later-developed colony should be given a separate identity such as Green Park Phase-III, or its house numbering should be changed so that every property has a unique address. The association believes that a clear and permanent decision will not only reduce the daily inconvenience of residents but also improve the efficiency of civic and emergency services in the area.
