IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.7066 of 2009 Date of decision: 11.5.2009 Sukhdev Singh -----Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. ----- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by acquisition of land. 2. Earlier C.W.P. No.10046 of 2008 was filed, inter-alia, on the ground that the land was included by way of corrigendum, which may deprive the petitioner of compensation on the date of notification of the corrigendum whereby the land of the petitioner was for the first time included. Further contention was that there was no justification for change of route of the drain from the route originally notified. 3. Vide order dated 9.3.2009, while disposing of the earlier writ petition, it was directed that the petitioner will be entitled to compensation as per market value on the date of corrigendum. Noticing the contention of the State that change in CWP No.7066 of 2009 the route was along the natural flow of Abul Khurana Minor, a direction was issued that the petitioner be given a hearing by the Secretary of the concerned department. Accordingly, the petitioner was given a hearing by the concerned Secretary and order dated 15.4.2009, Annexure P-10, has been passed. It was held therein, as under:- “..... The project was appraised and approved for financing by NABARD. The process of implementation of the project began with the acquisition of land for construction of the proposed drains. Of these drains, Lal Bai Drain, which passes through Lal Bai and Abulkhurana villages, is to be constructed in a length of 3.27 km at a cost of Rs.1.56 crore....” “.........While issuing notice for acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, the Department of Irrigation on the recommendations of the Chief Engineer, Drainage, Punjab, invoked emergency provisions under Section 17 of the Act ibid, because ever increasing water logging in the area, was adversely affecting the livelihood of a large number of farmers. However, further proceedings for land acquisition could not be completed because Sh. Sukhdev Singh and Sh. Tara Singh preferred CWP Nos.10046 of 2008 and 10197 of 2008 respectively in Punjab and Haryana High Court which were decided by the High Court in a single order of 9.3.2009. The petitioners were directed by the Court to appear before Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Punjab. The Court further directed that Secretary, Department of Irrigation, 2 CWP No.7066 of 2009 should give petitioners a hearing and take a decision within 15 days......” xx xx xx xx xx “13.0. In this manner, it is found that alignment of the proposed drain has been changed keeping in view larger public interest. It is technically feasible and will benefit a larger number of farmers in the catchment areas. Therefore, the proposed changed alignment and as a result, additional acquisition of land vide notification no.4/25/07-IW(3)/22924 dated 31.8.2007 under section 4 and no.4/25/07-IW(3)/22921 dated 31.8.2007 under section 6 as amended vide corrigendum no.4/25/07-IW(3)/2350 dated 7.2.2008 no.4/25/07-IW(3)/2353 dated 7.2.2008 under section 4 and 6 which have been duly published under appropriate provisions of law, are considered to be fully justified and in larger public interest. The reasons given by the applicants in their representations challenging the acquisition of land are unfounded and, therefore, these representations are filed.” 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. It cannot be disputed that purpose of acquisition is genuine public purpose. There is, thus, no ground for interference with the acquisition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that though urgency clause has been involved, no compensation has been paid. Even 80% compensation has not yet been paid. 7. We find that the petitioner had moved this Court earlier and possession of land has not been yet taken. State is 3 CWP No.7066 of 2009 bound to pay compensation before taking possession and if there is urgency, State cannot delay the matter. 8. Accordingly, we direct that further proceedings be taken expeditiously and compensation be paid to the petitioner before taking possession in accordance with law. 9. The petition is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE May 11, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 4