KAMALJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge herein, at the hands of the petitioner, is to the impugned action of the official respondents in having demolished her construction on the announced premise that the land thereunder had been "acquired so as to give effect to the Revitalization Plan of the Jallianwala Bagh of 2007" and also a similar announcement that "the petitioner and others will be suitably compensated for the acquisition". In fact, the allegation proceeds, the announced acquisition was a facade and the respondents No. 3 and 5 did not supply the copies of any of the notification or award in spite of the repeated request of the petitioner. The year of acquisition was given out to be 1968.

(2.) AS per averments in the petition, the petitioner purchased the impugned commercial building bearing Municipal No. 1500/3 situated at Bazar Bagh Jallianwala at Amritsar "adjoining to the main entrance of the Jallianwala Bagh" on 21.6.2004. There is a Gali (about 3.4 feet wide) intervening "the boundary wall of the petitioner's building and the adjoining building bearing No. 1499/3, this is one of the historical Gali's (besides others), which leads to the Jallianwala Bagh."

(3.) THE contesting respondents averred that the petition deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and latches inasmuch as the impugned acquisition had been notified vide notification dated 17.7.1968 (Annexure P-6); whereas the challenge herein had been filed only in the year 2008. The further averment is that this land belonged to one Vijay Kumar whose father Rattan Chand had entered appearance before the authorized (Land Acquisition) Collector at the time of award proceedings and further that the assessed compensation (Rs. 5920/-) had been deposited in terms of the award dated 4.12.1979 (Annexure P-10). The further averment, in the context, is that the land aforementioned having been acquired in the year 1968 and the relevant award having been granted on 4.12.1979, Vijay Kumar ceased to have any title in that land thereafter which he could have validly transferred to the petitioner herein on 21.6.2004.