IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2431 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 1, 2008 Jarnail Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the petitioners. M.M. KUMAR, J. The prayer made by the petitioners in the instant petition is for quashing notification dated 25.5.2007 (P-9), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 21.11.2007 (P-13), issued under Section 6 of the Act. A further prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents has also been made requiring them to re-survey the entire area and then withdraw notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. Still further it has been prayed that the respondents be directed to acquire the land as per the original survey plan prepared by the Government on 5.10.2004. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners owns land in the revenue estate of villages Nagla, Mamumajra, Kalsan, Kalsani, C.W.P. No. 2431 of 2008 Gumti and Fatehgarh Jharauli, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. In the year 1983-84, the State of Haryana conducted a survey for construction of a canal called as “Dadupur Nalvi Canal”, starting from Dadupur Head Works, District Yamuna Nagar, which was to pass through various villages located in districts Yamuna Nagar, Ambala and Kurukshetra, including the aforementioned villages of the petitioners. It is claimed that after considering the objections raised by the inhabitants of village Nagla, Mamumajra, Kalsan, Kansani, Gumti and Fatehgarh Jahrauli, against the proposed alignment of canal, the proposal of constructing the canal and its distributory through the land falling in the said villages was dropped. On 25.5.2007, a notification under Section 4 of the Act has been issued for acquiring the land of the petitioners and other land owners for a public purpose, namely, Nalvi Distributory from RD 45100 feet to 110000 feet in villages Mohra, Shahpur, Kot Machhwa Khurd in Tehsil and District Ambala and Chhorpur, Mohri Samalkhi, Kaliana, Goripur, Patti Boripur, Zainpur, Shahzadpur, Nagla, Kalsani, Kalsana, Gumti, Mamu Majra, Fatehgarh Jharauli, Mugal Mazra and Jharauli Khurd in Tehsil Shahbad, District Kurukshetra (P-9). Some of the petitioners filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act for not acquiring the land in dispute with a further request to change the direction of the canal (P-10). It has been alleged that since no hearing was granted to the petitioners, therefore, they approached this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 12186 of 2007, challenging notification dated 25.5.2007, issued under Section 4 of the Act. However, on the 2 C.W.P. No. 2431 of 2008 basis of the stand taken by the respondents that the objections filed by the petitioners were under consideration, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 24.8.2007. On 21.11.2007, declaration under Section 6 of the Act for acquiring total land measuring 137.6 acres, has been issued (P-13). The aforementioned notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 25.5.2007 (P-9) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 21.11.2007 (P-13) are subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. Mr. Puneet Bali, learned counsel for the petitioners has made two submissions before us. He has first pointed out from the site plan Annexure P-12 that digging of raw un-bricked channel would result into floods in the villages belonging to the petitioners, which is likely to occur on account of changing the alignment whereas the earlier alignment was more proper. According to the learned counsel the Nalvi Distributory marked by Red colour has now been proposed whereas the Green boundary of the Nalvi Distributory was the earlier alignment. According to the learned counsel changing of alignment would endanger the villages of the petitioners by floods. He has further submitted that the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act have not been considered. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the paper book, we are of the considered view that the public purpose of Nalvi Distributory has been cited for acquisition of land. In fact, the notifications subject matter of challenge in the instant petition are part of bigger irrigation scheme formed by the State of 3 C.W.P. No. 2431 of 2008 Haryana, known as ‘Dadupur Nalvi Irrigation Scheme’. The matter has earlier come up before of this Court in the case of Sadhu Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others (C.W.P. No. 16840 of 2007, decided on 21.1.2008), where detailed facts with regard to the principal scheme have been noticed by a Division Bench of which one of us (M.M. Kumar, J.) was a member. We are conscious of the fact that in Sadhu Singh’s case (supra), the attack was against invocation of urgency clause but since the bigger scheme of Dadupur Nalvi Irrigation Project was subject matter of that petition, a reference has accordingly been made. The interference of this Court in such like cases would not be warranted. Moreover, the change of alignment is the work of experts and the Courts are not equipped with any expertise to opine one way or the other. It cannot be imagined that the alignment has been changed in such a way so as to cause floods in the villages belonging to the petitioners. A similar argument was raised in Sadhu Singh’s case (supra) where even mala fide against the Minister of Local Area were leveled but the same did not find favour with the Division Bench. The argument of learned counsel that the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act have not been heard remains unsubstantiated. There is no material on record showing that the petitioners were not issued notice of hearing after they have filed objections. In the present scenario the petitioners could have obtain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in that regard. However, no document has been placed on record except the bald 4 C.W.P. No. 2431 of 2008 statement. It is well settled that all official acts are supposed to have been done in accordance with law until shown otherwise. Therefore, we do not feel persuaded to accept the contention that the objections filed by the petitioners have not been heard and considered as per the requirement of law. The writ petition is wholly without merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. In view of the above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) April 1, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 5