Administration asked to hear petitioner

CHANDIGARH, Nov 23: Taking up a civil writ petition regarding a request to quash the action of UT through its Administrator, Finance Secr...

CHANDIGARH, Nov 23: Taking up a civil writ petition regarding a request to quash the action of UT through its Administrator, Finance Secretary and Land Acquisition Officer LAO whereby they sealed the farm house of petitioners, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the October 26 letter of the LAO regarding the said eviction and also directed the UT Adviser to give hearing to the petitioner on November 25 and then pass a fresh order.

On the evening of October 26, petitioners Roop Judge and her husband Ranjeet Singh Judge, owners of a farm house situated along the railway station road, suddenly found themselves on the road after they learnt that the land acquisition officer had ordered immediate eviction of premises which he said quot;had been illegally occupied.quot; Later in the evening, the premises were sealed without any notice to the petitioners who were out to Delhi.

The High Court bench, while passing the order on November 18, held that since Roop Judge had not been heard, an opportunity to do the same should be given to her. The said observation was made here by the bench, consisting of Justice H.S. Bedi and Justice A.S. Garg.

Before moving the Court, the petitioners had already sent two mercy petitions to the Administrator. The first one was sent with a request that since the said house did not have to be demolished, they be allowed to stay there. In reply, the Administration asked for a monthly rent of Rs 9,220. The second petition then followed and the petitioners stated that it was very difficult for them to pay this amount. While the matter was still hanging, the LAO ordered eviction of the premises on October 26, following which a civil writ petition was filed in the High Court.

In their reply, the Administration maintained that while the letter asking for rent against the house was quot;erroneousquot;, the one given by LAO only showed that the Administration has rejected the mercy petition.

Later, taking up the case, the High Court, however, directed the Administration to hear the petitioner and then pass an order.

It needs to be mentioned here that notifications regarding acquisition of about 98.12 acres of land in Manimajra and Daria villages for the purpose of aforestation were issued in 1992-93, following which various petitions were filed in the High Court. Though the writs were dismissed, the bench hearing the cases directed the Administration to consider framing of an appropriate scheme for rehabilitation of petitioners in accordance with rules, justice and good conscience.

Story continues below this ad

While the process of acquisition went on, no such scheme was ever evolved. Later, cases were also filed in the Supreme Court of India, which did not interfere with the order already passed by the High Court, but held that in case the acquired houses are not to be demolished, the petitioners can approach the Administration and the concerned authorities can then decide in the manner they consider fit.

Taking this very observation as the base, Roop Judge and her husband had sent a mercy petition to UT Administrator in 1998. In reply to the same, the Finance Secretary stated that the petitioners may live in the house on the condition of paying a monthly rent of Rs 9,220. In reaction, another petition was sent to the Administrator wherein it was pleaded that the area being acquired is all the property the petitioners had. They added that they had grown many tress inn the surrounding areas. It was also stated that though the Court had dismissed the petitions in this regard, it had left it to UT Administration to consider personal requests.

The petitioners had added that across the road there is an unproductive government orchard whose land can be acquired for afforestation. They requested that their sole family house be left. Regarding rent, it was mentioned that they were not in a position to pay so much.