PRAKASH KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved against the notification issued by the Government of Punjab dated 6-8-2004 seeking to acquire the land in villages of Tehsils Dasua and Mukerian of District Hoshiarpur for the purpose of doubling the railway line between Jalandhar Cant, and Jammu Tawi, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Land measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas in khasra numbers 6851/5456 wherein the house of the petitioner is situated, is a negligible part of land sought to be acquired through the said notification. The petitioner complains that though 1 kanal 12 marlas of land being part of his house, is being acquired yet her neighbouring respondents have been favoured and only 4 marlas of land belonging to them has been acquired in khasra number 6864. The petitioner also alleges that the acquisition of this 4 marlas of land in khasra number 6864 does not cover the house of respondents 5 and 6 whereas the house of the petitioner is being completely covered under this acquisition.

(2.) Facts as pleaded in the writ petition show that Government of Punjab has issued notification No. 7/2/2004-1 B & R-III/3029 dated 6-8-2004 (Annexure P-4) under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) giving notice for acquisition of land specified in the said notice for the public purposes of doubling the railway line between Jalandhar Cantt. and Jammu Tawi to be laid through villages of Tehsils Dasua and Mukerian of District Hoshiarpur. As per the said notification, exercising the powers, the Governor of Punjab had directed that action under Section 17 (1) of the Act shall be taken on the ground of urgency and accordingly the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply in regard to this acquisition. As per the averment made in the petition, total area of this abadi deh comprised in khasra No. 6841/5456 Khatouni No. 875 in abadi deh of village Khuda of Tehsils Dasua, District Hoshiarpur is 198 kanals and 4 marlas. Out of this, an area of 1 kanal and 12 marlas sought to be acquired vide impugned notification in khasra numbers 6851 /5456 is that of the petitioner where she has a constructed house. The petitioner has also attached a site plan and has stated that the railway line is to be extended 30' inwards towards the house of the petitioner which is on the eastern side of the existing railway line. It is also stated that as a conscious citizen of the country, she has no objection to such extension of 30' inwards extension of the railway line which is likely to consume almost 1/3rd of the house of the petitioner. She has marked this as "red line" crossing the house of the petitioner in the site plan annexed as Annexure P-5. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that though her house is being completely acquired, yet the official respondents are not touching the house of private respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner claims that reasons for exempting the house of respondents 5 and 6 are oblique and action of the official respondents in acquiring the complete house of the petitioner is arbitrary and is actuated with mala fide.

(3.) In order to substantiate the allegation of favour made in respect of respondents numbers 5 and 6, the petitioner has stated that acquisition of 4 marlas of land in khasra number 6864 wherein lies the house of respondents 5 and 6 does not even touch their house in any manner. It appears from the pleadings that railway cabin exists at a place which is also required to be extended 30' inward of its existing position. The petitioner complains that instead of extending this railway cabin 30' inwards of its existing position, it is being shifted diagonally into the house of the petitioner. Thus, the houses of respondents 5 and 6 are being exempted or are not being touched. Giving reason for the official respondents to favour the private respondents 5 and 6, the petitioner has stated that son of respondent No. 5, namely, Harjinder Singh is working as Patwari, Surinder Singh Saini who is son of respondent No. 6, is working as Assistant Law officer at Railway Coach Factory and his daughter Pawan Saini is working in the Accounts Branch of department of Railways at Jalandhar. It is further stated that son-in-law of respondent No. 6 is posted as SSO in the railways at Jalandhar. The petitioner claims that it is on account of influence of these persons that official respondents while re-constructing the existing railway cabin, has exempted respondents 5 and 6 and as a result thereof, the said railway cabin is being constructed in the house of the petitioner. The petitioner has also alleged that technically or otherwise the construction of the existing railway cabin could not have been proposed in the house of the petitioner which has been left completely inhabitable. She has annexed photographs of the existing house which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-6.