IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16795 of 2007(O&M Date of Decision: 22.12.2008 Ravinder Kumar and others Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Anil Ghanghas, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Sanjiv Kaushik, Additional A.G. Haryana Mr.Jagjeet Behniwal, Advocate for the applicants ….. T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) The alignment of a proposed Minor Irrigation Canal intended to provide irrigation facilities to lands situate in village Dhanana is assailed in this petition that purports to have been filed in public interest. Immediate provocation for filing the writ petition is provided by a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land from village Talu which is adjacent to village Dhanana for the construction of the said minor canal. The grievance of the petitioners, who are residents of Civil Writ Petition No.16795 of 2007(O&M) 2 village Dhanana is that while the minor irrigation canal is meant to irrigate lands situate in village Dhanana only, there is no justification for acquiring any land situate in village Talu nor is there any justification behind an alignment which will make the minor canal pass through the said village. The real purpose according to the petitioners for the alignment proposed by the engineers is to somehow provide an opportunity to the villagers of village Talu to draw water from the canal. A direction is, therefore, sought by the petitioners for shifting the alignment so that the canal passes entirely through lands situate in village Dhanana. When this petition came up before us on 4.9.2008, Mr.Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G.Haryana appearing for the respondents submitted that the alignment for the minor irrigation canal had been settled with a view to providing maximum irrigation facilities to the lands situate in village Dhanana. The allegation that the alignment is intended to benefit the residents of village Talu was denied and the apprehension of the petitioners that villagers from Talu may also draw water from this canal described as wholly misplaced. Upon consideration of the rival contentions urged before us and keeping in view the technical nature of the issue that arose for consideration, we were of the opinion that the Chief Engineer, Department of Irrigation, Government of Haryana could be directed to examine the matter and determine afresh whether the proposed alignment of minor canal was the only possible alignment for meeting the irrigation requirements for the land falling in village Dhanana. We had further directed the Chief Enigneer that the petitioners and the other villagers from village Dhanana should also be heard and opportunity given to them to present their case before Engineer-in- Civil Writ Petition No.16795 of 2007(O&M) 3 Chief. A report was demanded from the Chief Engineer on the subject expeditiously. In compliance with the above direction, the Chief Engineer has visited the spot, examined the issue and submitted a report from a reading whereof it appears that shifting of the alignment of the minor canal on the Southern side as proposed by the petitioners is not technically feasible as according to the Chief Engineer, any such change in the alignment will defeat the very purpose of constructing the minor canal. The Chief Engineer has also considered the suggestions made by the petitioners to join the proposed minor canal at RD 7000 but found the same to be not feasible. The conclusion of the Chief Engineer based on his inspection of the spot is available in the following paragraphs:- “The shifting alignment of minor on the Southern side is also not feasible because in that case the very purpose of constructing this minor will be defeated. And the existing Talu Sub Minor and Talu Minor will not the augmented in Toto. I have seen the contour of this minor and the proposed alignment passed on higher contours as per primary condition for fixing alignment of minors/ distributaries. So in my opinion the proposed alignment is technically viable and in the large interest of maximum area and there is no necessity for any change as the proposed minor is meant for augmenting the supply in Talu Sub Minor and Talu Minor.” In the light of the above expert opinion tendered by the Chief Engineer, there is no real cause for our intervention. If an expert, who is Civil Writ Petition No.16795 of 2007(O&M) 4 technically qualified to examine and offer comments about the feasibility of alignment of the canal is upon reconsideration of the matter and appreciation of the site conditions and the topography of the area of the view that the alignment in question is the only alignment which would serve the purpose, we cannot sit in appeal over the said opinion or substitute the same by our own opinion on the subject. We are at any rate handicapped in embarking upon any such exercise in the absence of requisite expertise. That apart the question whether the construction of the canal through some portion that falls in village Talu will in any manner create any handicap in providing irrigation facilities for the land at the tail end would be a question of fact that we cannot satisfactorily determine in our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Last but not the least is the fact that construction of the canal at the present alignment may not have much to do with the actual availability of water to the lands at the tail end of the canal. We say so because even if the minor canal is constructed on the alignment presently suggested by the Engineer and approved by the Chief Engineer, whether or not water would reach the tail end, would depend upon effective and proper regulation of distribution of the same by the concerned authorities. It is pre- mature at this stage for the petitioners to allege that, just because the alignment of the canal is not to their liking, the water meant for them would not actually reach them. All that we need say in that regard is that if upon construction of the canal the petitioners face any difficulty in getting a fair share of water meant for them through the canal, they shall be entitled to approach the authorities concerned who shall then look into the grievance and pass appropriate orders on the subject to ensure that the benefit of the Civil Writ Petition No.16795 of 2007(O&M) 5 construction of the minor canal is not denied to those for whose benefit the same was meant. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed off leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All pending applications shall also stand disposed off in terms of the above. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE 22.12.2008 (JASBIR SINGH) gk JUDGE