HC asks UT to explain ‘discrimination’

Taking stock of the allegations,the High Court has restrained the Administration from dispossessing the petitioners from their house. It was in 2006 that the Chandigarh Administration had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 167.55 acres of land in village Maloya with the purpose of rehabilitation of slum dwellers.

On September 27,2006,the Administration had invited objections to the acquisition of land. The petitioners had filed their objections,requesting the authorities that they should not be dispossessed from their house.

The petitioners took the plea that according to the policy,their house is well within the abadi area and that they had been living in the said house since 1984. It was further contended that their house shares a common wall with their neighbour whose house has been exempted from acquisition.

Terming this “discrimination” and alleging victimisation,the petitioners approached the Administration. In response to this,the Administration sought a report from the land acquisition officer and submitted a report on June 18,2008. It was submitted that the house of the petitioners shall be exempted from the acquisition. “The government completely ignored the report of the land acquisition officer and its recommendations. To the utter surprise of the petitioners,the Administration acted against the recommendation given by the land acquisition officer,” reads the petition.

It was further alleged that the Administration did not “apply its mind to the report given by the land acquisition officer and decided to acquire the house of the petitioner”. Further,the petitioners have alleged that the government “exempted the Shiv temple and other houses situated in the area which cannot be exempted from acquisition”.

The petitioners alleged that the acquisition ordered against them is a “violation of Article 14 of the Constitution”.