IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3112 of 2010 Date of Decision: May 25, 2010 Pritam Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing notification dated 21.8.2008 (P-1), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 17.7.2009 made under Section 6 of the Act (P-4). A further direction has also been sought for release of the land belonging to the petitioner from acquisition comprised in Murabba No. 60, Killa No. 1, 10, 11 and 20, situated in the revenue estate of village Bhatian, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal. An alternative prayer has also been made that the respondents may explore the possibility of acquiring the land of the petitioner along with killa alignment of CWP No. 3112 of 2010 Killa No. 20, 11, 10 and 1 of Murabba No. 60, in order to avoid division of his field. Brief facts of the case are that a notification dated 21.8.2008 (P-1) under Section 4 of the Act was issued acquiring the land belonging to the petitioner, comprised in the aforesaid killa numbers. The public purpose disclosed in the notification is for linking Old Ghaggar Creek for disposal of flood water of Cheeka Town/Fields in to Ghaggar River at RD 107000 of Ghaggar Bund from RD 2380-2848, 9000-12780 in Village Bhatian, RD 12780 to 17100 in Village Sehon Majra and from RD 34275 to 35500 in Village Nandgarh, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal. The land of the petitioner is situated in village Bhatian, as already noticed. Against the aforesaid notification, the petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act complaining that the proposed acquisition would bifurcate his fields into three parts and it would be difficult to manage and irrigate his land. He suggested an alternative which would not have caused loss to anyone or which would not have involved any additional expenses. The case of the petitioner is that without considering the objections and alternative suggested by him, declaration, dated 17.7.2009, has been made under Section 6 (P-4). In reply to the notice, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has filed their written statement. It has been disclosed that the notification for acquisition of land was preceded by a decision and the scheme was approved in the 39th meeting of the Haryana State Flood Control Board, held on 29.1.2008 so as to save Cheeka Town and its 2 CWP No. 3112 of 2010 surrounding areas from floods. The old Ghaggar Creek was to be linked by constructing a drain through the land of village Bhatian, Sheo Majra and Nandgarh, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal. The respondents surveyed the site on the spot and after examining the viability of the disposal of flood water, it was decided to acquire the land through which the drain was to be constructed for the public purpose and for the benefit of public at large. The views of Panchayat, Block Samiti as well as general public were obtained. All possible alignments as per suggestions of the public were examined and most suitable alignment was recommended with complete details of each proposal to the competent authority (R-1 & R-2). The competent authority i.e. Chief Engineer/Bhakra Water Services, Haryana Irrigation Department, Panchkula, after thorough consideration and examination of different proposed alignments, has approved the alignment which is depicted in their letter dated 24.3.2008 (R-3). The site plan explaining the aforesaid alignment has been placed on record (R-5). The approved alignment is shown in Red colour and has been found most suitable technically and economically. It follows shortest route with least bends and on the Muraba line where old Ghaggar creek joins i.e. at point ‘C’ and with maximum satisfaction of public at large. It was thereafter that notifications under Sections 4 and 6 and the publication in newspapers as well as in the local area by beat of drum has been made. The objections of the petitioner filed under Section 5-A of the 3 CWP No. 3112 of 2010 Act were also dealt with parawise and reply of each objection after detailed examination was submitted (R-5). After hearing of objections, a report was submitted on 23.12.2008 (R-6). The alternative proposal given by the petitioner was dropped vide letter dated 29.4.2009 (R-7), on the ground that it was not feasible as there would be two 90 degree sharp turns in a shorter width of 200 ft.. Such bends would be great hurdle in disposal of the free flow of flood water to old Ghaggar creek and was not considered technically viable. The second proposal suggested by the petitioner towards the pucca road shown as CFGB (R-4) was also not found feasible because the length of the drain increases by 1150 ft. if this alignment was to be adopted. It would have involved acquisition of extra land and additional cost of construction. It was further felt that being adjacent to the abadi the chances of blockage of drain by dumping of waste would have increased. The possibility of breaking out of epidemics would have also increased. The Block Samiti also passed a resolution requesting the need to construct the drain near the abadi (R-8). The total length of various alternatives has been disclosed in para 7 of the preliminary submissions of the reply. Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has repeated the submission of alternative alignment by referring to site plan (P-5). According to the learned counsel the red lined area is the land belonging to the petitioner and the alignment could be shifted to 4 CWP No. 3112 of 2010 green area instead of blue lined area. The other suggestion is that the alignment be made by the yellow line. Ms. Palika Monga, learned State counsel on the other hand has submitted that both the alternatives suggested by the petitioner have been considered. The first alternative for alignment of the drain along side green marked area may not be possible because it involves two bends at acute angles whereas blue lines area is straight. Likewise, the objection to yellow line area has been raised. She has argued that the length and expenditure would increase which would involve acquisition of more land involving more persons. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the site plan Annexures P-4 and R-3, we are of the considered view that the instant petition is devoid of merit and, thus, liable to be dismissed. According to the petitioner’s own showing the alignment of the land by blue coloured portion in the site plan Annexure P-4 is in straight line whereas both the other suggested alignments in green and yellow colour have not been accepted by the department. The decision of the respondents is well reasoned. With regard to green colour alignment, as suggested by the petitioner, it has been rightly ruled out because it would involve two acute angle bends. Likewise, the yellow colour alignment suggested by the petitioner would result into acquisition of more land involving more expenditure. On principle also, it is not for the Courts to assume the job of experts and opine one way or the other as long as the decision of the department does not suffer from exercise of arbitrary power. 5 CWP No. 3112 of 2010 The Courts are very slow in interfering with their decision. On principle as well as on facts, it is clear that the decision of the department does not suffer from any arbitrary exercise of power. The writ petition does not warrant admission and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land belonging to him would be bifurcated into pieces has not impressed us. If we take any of the alternatives, some body else’s land would be involved. In both the alternatives there are limitations or additional burden. Even the third alternative has not been accepted by the department. Therefore, the decision of the department does not suffer from any legal infirmity. As a sequel of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 25, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 6