CWP No. 10679 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10679 of 2009 Date of Decision: 03.08.2009 Five Elements Health & Educational Society (Regd.) ..Petitioner versus Union of India and others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. M.L.Saggar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. O.S.Batalvi, Central Govt. Standing Counsel for Union of India. Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondent-State of Punjab. ***** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) This petition purporting to have been filed in public interest is a classic case of abuse of the process of law. It calls in question the alignment of a Bye-pass road, construction whereof has CWP No. 10679 of 2009 [2] become necessary not only to sub-serve the requirements of the Armed Forces guarding the western border but also for the people of Patiala which is an old and congested city in Punjab. What is significant is that the acquisition of the land required for the construction of Bye Pass Road has gone unchallenged by the land owners who have not only received compensation determined in their favour but delivered the possession of the land needed for the project. More than six years after the delivery of the possession of the acquired land to the Border Roads Organisation, the agency executing the project, the present writ petition has been filed by a Society which has no ostensible right or interest in the land acquired for the project but which claims to be running a Health Centre established over the land that stands vested in the State. The writ petition is blissfully silent as to the locus of the petitioner to challenge either the alignment of the road or the acquisition proceedings. Neither any averment has been made nor any material produced by the petitioner to show even on a prima facie basis as to how the Society has occupied the land in question, or acquired any interest in the same. When asked as to what interest the petitioner has in the land which stands lawfully acquired for the project, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to give any satisfactory answer or draw our attention to any documentary or other material that could show even a semblance of any right or title in the petitioner society qua the disputed piece of land. On the contrary,he admitted that the President of the Society, namely, Shri Joginder Tyger is none other than the owner from whom the land in question has been acquired and who has already received the compensation determined in his favour, as has his wife and CWP No. 10679 of 2009 [3] brother who have all surrendered possession of the same to the authorities concerned. It is thus manifest that the present writ petition has been inspired by the erstwhile owner of the land who is now invoking the process of this Court in purported public interest with a view to getting the piece of land back. A similar petition it is noteworthy had been filed by what was described as “Patiala Southern Bye-pass Affected Association and others V. Union of India and others” in this Court which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 04.08.2008. This Court had while doing so taken note of the averments made by the respondents to the effect that Bye-pass had been planned and is under execution for the past many years. It had also taken note of the fact that the project design provided for more than 50 openings in the shape of culverts of varying spans, at a distance of every Kilometer of the 18 Kilometer long Bye-Pass length. The Court found nothing illegal or perverse about either the construction of the Bye-pass or the alignment on which the same is being constructed. The present writ petition coming nearly one year after the dismissal of the said writ petition making a some what similar grievance, without the material facts and particulars is not only belated but malafide also. Time now to state a few facts in detail: Acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act appear to have started way back in the year 1980 for construction of Patiala Bye-pass Road over a length of 17.59 Kilometer. On account of the change of alignment, the estimates were revised and approved on 24.03.1998 for a sum of Rs. 6, 11,000,00/-. The acquisition proceedings for 141.76 acres of land were completed in the year 1983-84 while an CWP No. 10679 of 2009 [4] additional extent of 53.60 acres was acquired in November, 2002. It is not in dispute that possession of a larger chunk of land was delivered to the Border Roads Organisation on 19.03.2002. The possession of the smaller chunk measuring 53.60 acres was according to Mr. Saggar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner delivered only on 19.05.2003 but only on paper. This according to the petitioner included land owned by Joginder Tyger, his wife, and brother measuring in all about three acres. It is common ground that the validity of the acquisition proceedings was never assailed by the aforementioned owners who received compensation for the same. The project was therefore taken up for execution and according to the respondents stands completed to the extent of 80%. The writ petition as already noticed earlier does not make any averment that the petitioner has any interest in the land under acquisition. Such being the position, the only question that needs to be considered is whether the petitioner has a genuine public cause to espouse in the present proceedings. Our answer to the same is in negative. The petitioner has established, what appears from the photograph produced to be an amusement park showing among other facilities a small train track for children, swings and other facilities like boating etc. in what according to the petitioner is a lake but according to the respondents only a low lying area which accumulates water during the rainy season. The petitioner wants us to believe that the Society is running a Health Centre providing free medicines and holding different camps at different places in Punjab. There is, however, nothing on the record to substantiate any one of the assertions before us. Even assuming that the CWP No. 10679 of 2009 [5] Society is engaged in any such activities, we see no reason why the Society should have allowed the Project to be completed and slept over the matter for years before coming to this Court to assail the alignment on which the Road is being constructed. The relationship between the Society and the owners of the land which has been acquired. has also not been clearly stated in the writ petition. We have in that view no option but to assume that since the erstwhile owner Joginder Tyger is also the President of the Society, the present petition is an effort to prevent utilisation of the acquired land for the public purpose for which the same is acquired and that the said attempt is made at the instance of the owner who has already received compensation and allowed the proceedings to become final. In the totality of the circumstances and having regard to the fact that the respondents have clearly denied the allegations that there is any sharp or hazardous bend on the Bye-pass road or that the area is likely to get flooded during the rainy season, we have no difficulty in declining to exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The respondents have pointed out from the record and from the order which this Court has passed earlier that construction of 50 culverts and under passes will ensure that the owners who have their land falling on either the side of the Byepass will have access to their land but also that the apprehension that the area may get flooded during rainy season on account of the level of the road being higher than the area in the vicinity are totally unfounded. That apart 80% of the construction work on the Bye-Pass road having been completed, any proposal for change of the alignment would at this stage be wholly unnecessary and unworkable. CWP No. 10679 of 2009 [6] In the result, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 20000/-. The costs shall be deposited in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Legal Services Committee for being spent on legal aid. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 03.08.2009 'ravinder'