Plea against acquisition of land in Dhanas, Dadu Majra for connecting road withdrawn
Chandigarh, November 21
Three year after the acquisition of land in Dhanas and Dadu Majra to connect Dakshin Marg to “PR-4” in Punjab came under the judicial scanner, the plea before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was today withdrawn.
The new bypass
The new bypass or PR-4 will take off from the high-level bridge at Dadu Majra to the UT boundary on the Mullanpur side. The proposed road will come up on 18.13 acres to be acquired in Dadu Majra village and Dhanas. The new road will connect Highway No. 21 and Sector 39, Chandigarh.
The Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli was told during the course of hearing that the possession had already been taken by the UT Administration of 5.57 acres for Dhanas and 12.23 acres for Dadu Majra out of the total acquired 18 acres.
UT senior standing counsel Anil Mehta with advocate Sumeet Jain and Akanksha Sawhney contended that a majority of the 89 petitioners had either received compensation or filed reference for enhancement. Mehta added that Rs 54.44 crore out of the total compensation of Rs 74.67 crore had already been disbursed to the petitioners in the present case and the remaining Rs 20.15 crore had been deposited before the reference court.
Mehta also told the court that Punjab had already completed the construction till the connectivity point of land falling in its jurisdiction. In Chandigarh, wet mix had already been laid, but the construction was stayed due to the status-quo order dated October 5, 2020.
The petitioners, Jaspal Singh and others, had alleged that the value of the land belonging to politicians and bureaucrats there would increase by several crores. Besides, Dhanas-Mullanpur-Siswan road connecting Punjab to Dakshin Marg in Chandigarh was just 2 kms from the proposed connecting road.
The petitioners’ counsel had contended that numerous residential and commercial projects were being set-up by “famous private companies and builders” in Punjab abutting the PR-4 road.
The counsel had added that the “appropriate government” was trying to project the acquisition of land for construction of 200-feet connectivity road to serve public purpose just to deprive the landowners of their legal rights enshrined under the “Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013”.
The counsel had added that the intention was to especially deprive 20 per cent reservation of land for landowners in case of urbanization.
