C.W.P.No.6547 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.6547 of 2008 Date of decision:25.4.2008 Mahal Singh ---petitioner vs. State of Haryana and others ---Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M.Kumar Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, For the petitioner. M.M.KUMAR, J. The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition is for quashing notification dated 22.2.2007 (Annexure P-4) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 18.3.2005 issued under Section 6 of the Act. A further prayer for directing the respondents to acquire the land to carry out the construction of Shahbad Distributory under the Dadupur Nalvi irrigation Scheme as per sanctioned plan dated 5.10.2004. C.W.P.No.6547 of 2008 -2- Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a co- owner of land in the revenue estate of village Padlu,. Tehsil Shahbad, District, Kurukshetra. Vide notification dated 13.10.2004 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the land falling in various villages of District Yamunanagar, Ambala and Kurukshera including village Padlu was included in the plan. The State of Haryana without taking into consideration the earlier survey/alignment, has issued notification under Section 4 of the Act to acquire the land of village Padlu by invoking the provisions of Section 17(2) of the Act. On 18.3.2005 declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued whereby the land of various villages including village Padlu was acquired. Thereafter some land owners approached this Court by filing C.W.P.No.8876 of 2005 (Tarsem Singh and others. V. State of Haryana) for enforcement of plan dated 5.10.2004 and that writ petition was allowed. The respondents were given liberty to relocate the land in terms of the plan dated 5.10.2004, if so advised. Thereafter, respondents issued another notification dated 22.2.2007 (Annexure P-4) under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring the land of village Padlu along with other villages including the land of the petitioner for construction of Shahbad Distributory RD 8g.3888 Km to 9.848 and RD Km 21.926 to 24.550. On 28.2.2007 declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued. Thereafter certain residents of village Padlu filed C.W.P.No. 4693 of 2007 seeking direction that the canal should be constructed as per the original survey plan dated 5.10.2004. Keeping in view the stand taken by the respondent-State that alignment of the proposed canal is in accordance with the C.W.P.No.6547 of 2008 -3- directions issued by this Court in C.W.P.No. 8876 of 2005 and the affidavit filed by Shri Vijay Jain, Superintending Engineer, Hathni Kund Barrage Circle, Jagadhari, in that writ petition, that petition was dismissed. The SLP filed in Hon'ble the Supreme Court has also been dismissed. Another civil writ petition No. 2431 of 2008 filed by certain land owners of villages Nagla, Manumajra, Kalsan, Kalsani, Gumti and Fatehgarh Jharauli, Tehsil Shahbad, District Kurukshetra has also been dismissed by this Court on 1.4.2008 whereby the challenge has been made to notification dated 25.4.2007 issued under Section 4 of the Act and declaration dated 21.11.2007 issued under Section 6 of the Act. Consequently, further prayer for directing the respondents to acquire the land as per the original survey plan prepared by the Government on 5.10.2004 had also been rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, we are of the considered view that the public purpose of construction of Shahbad Distributory from R.D. 8.3888 to 9.484 and RD 21. 926 to 24.550 in various villages 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 Haryana known as Dadupur Nalvi Irrigation Scheme’. The matter has earlier came up before 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 this Court of which one of us (M.M.Kumar,J.) is a member. We are conscious of the fact that in C.W.P.No.6547 of 2008 -4- 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 because these projects involved technical know how. 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 damage to 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 levelled but the same did not find favour with the Division Bench. In view of the above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) JUDGE April 25, 2008 paramjit