IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.619 of 2008 Decided on : September 3, 2008 Ram Singh and another …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. Per Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Respondent No.4, National Hydroelectric Corporation has taken up the work of execution of a Hydro Power Project at a place beyond village Sainj, which is named Parbati Hydroelectric Project Stage III. The Project is in Sainj Valley. To approach the site of the Project, respondents No.4 and 5 wanted to construct a road from a point beyond Larji. The process for acquisition of that land was started in 2005. Land was acquired and road was constructed on that portion. Lateron, a by-pass beyond the point upto which road had been constructed was sought to be constructed and for that also land was notified for acquisition. Notification was issued on 27th May, 2007, under Section 4 of the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Land Acquisition Act, by Secretary, Public Works Department. The Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department made a recommendation that due to technical reasons alignment of the by-pass was required to be changed. Consequently, the alignment was changed and another notification, Annexure P-5, was issued on 5th February, 2008, under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, for acquisition of the land mentioned therein for construction of by-pass along the changed alignment. The initial alignment and the changed alignment are shown in Annexure P-4. Respondents No.4 and 5 have also filed a sketch plan, indicating the initial alignment and the changed alignment. 2. The present petitioners are aggrieved by change in alignment. They have challenged notification Annexure P-5, on the ground that there are water sources and temples on the changed alignment, which will have to make way for the road. It is also alleged that in the notification, Annexure P-5, it is not mentioned as to what was the urgency for taking the possession before completing the process of assessment of compensation. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the record. 4. Admittedly, the road is sought to be constructed by respondents No.4 and 5 to reach the site of project and also to carry heavy machinery, equipment and other material to that site. The road is not meant to provide connectivity to any main road, to the people of the area. From Annexure R-4, the sketch filed by respondents No.4 and 5, it appears that already there exists a PWD road which connects the people of the area to the …3… main road leading towards Larji. Now, when the road and the by-pass are being constructed by respondents No.4 and 5 to reach the site of their project, we fail to understand how does it give locus standi to private individuals, like the present two writ petitioners, to challenge the change in alignment of the road/by- pass, particularly when the road/by-pass is not meant to provide any connectivity to the residents of the area to some other main road. We have also been told that the by-pass along the changed alignment is in the process of being constructed and major portion of it has already been constructed. Allegation that there are water sources or temples on the site of changed alignment is not supported by any material. Location of alleged water sources and temples is not shown in the site plan filed with the petition. 5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not think this to be a fit case for admission. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, the pending applications are also dismissed, as having become infructuous. ( R.B. Misra ), J. September 3, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.