MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Public Interest Litigation projects the cause of about 2000 persons residing in Katra town or its suburbs. It is stated that this category of people do not have residential houses. According to them, the State of Jammu and Kashmir as a welfare State took some steps in terms of State Town Planning Act of 1963. In para 4 of the petition, it is submitted that a notification was issued on 2nd July 80 This is Annexure A with the petition. It is submitted that 183.20 acres of land was earmarked for residential purposes and also for providing other facilities like shopping centre, school, reading room, health centre, post office, water storage tank etc. for the residents of the area. The Khasra Nos, which were to be utilized for the scheme and so far as these pertain to village Kundrorian have been enumerated in Annexure C. According to the petitioners, the total land earmarked for residential purposes is about 350 standard kanals. What has led the petitioners to approach this Court is the issuance of the notification, Annexure F. This is dated 29th Dec 97. About 547 kanals 6 marlas and 1/2 sf.ft of land located in Kundrorian, Katra and Arli Hansali is being acquired for the purpose of constructing a new bus stand. It is, as indicated above the issuance of this notification, which has led the petitioners to approach this Court. It is urged that by issuing this notification, the purpose which was enumerated in notification dated 2nd July 80 is going to be frustrated. It is further submitted that when the notifications were issued under the Land Acquisition Act, then there was no publication by way of a public notice to be affixed at convenient places in the said area or there was no publication in the newspapers. It is urged that as the land stands notified for construction of residential houses, therefore, the land in question cannot be now utilized for construction of a bus stand. It is submitted that making a provision for residential house enables a citizen to live a respectable life and denial of this privilege would amount to denial of right conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a nutshell, the challenge to the notification dt. 29th Dec 97 is interalia on the following grounds: -

(2.) THE State has denied the pleas put across by the petitioners. It is submitted that the construction of a bus stand is a public purpose. It is stated on account of increase in the traffic and the fact that large number of pilgrims are coming to pay homage at Mata Vaishno Devi, a necessity arose to construct a bus stand. It is stated that this would be helpful for the residents of the area also It is submitted that the sole consideration of constructing this bus stand is to provide a public utility service to the pilgrims and visitors of the town and the oblique motive as suggested in the writ petition is incorrect. It is further stated that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued after complying due formalities. It is accordingly submitted that the petitioners who want an individual purpose to be served cannot seek any relief in this Public Interest Litigation.

(3.) THE argument that the State Government had issued a notification on 2nd July 80 under the Act of 1963 and in that notification the land was reserved for residential purpose, and therefore, further steps cannot be taken with a view to acquire the land for construction of a bus stand be examined at the first stage.