In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P.No.15693 of 2007 Date of Decision:15-05-2008 Pritam Singh and others ---Petitioners vs. State of Haryana and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA *** Present: Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana Mr. B.S.Dhillon, Advocate, for Mr. J.S.Cooner, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 6 to 8. M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition is directed against acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of notification dated 21.4.2006 (Annexure P-2) under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') followed by a declaration dated 29.3.2007(Annexure P-4)issued under Section 6 of the Act. The principal ground of challenge is that the alignment of the road shown in the C.W.P.No.15693 of 2007 -2- site plan (P-5) by blue colour be not changed by making it a curve road shown in red colour. It has been alleged that the alignment has been changed in order to favour private respondent No. 5. It has been alleged that creating a curved road would be against general public interest as it may result into serious accidents. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, the stand taken is that the petitioners are labouring under wrong conception and have given incorrect facts to this Court. It has been clarified that the screening plant of respondent No. 5 is in existence since many years. The plant is stated to have been established after adopting proper procedure required for its installation and requisite certificates like pollution and sales tax clearance have already been issued to he plant. It is asserted that a large number of employees have been working there. Besides the plant, there is thick population in the area and the curved road has been carved out in order to avoid accidents and also to avoid up- rooting of the abadi area because the curve in the proposed road from 'C' to 'D' on the site plan R-1 would show that up to the bridge, under construction, there was no abadi of any kind on either side of the road. It is claimed that the construction of road with curve from 'C' to 'D' would result into safety of traffic and also avoid accidents. In para 15 of the written statement, it has further been pointed out that if there is no road with curve 'C' to 'D', then respondents were to pay additional compensation for the super structure machinery as well as the shifting of screening plant which would be approximately Rs. 55 lacs. Therefore, additional burden on the State exchequer has also been avoided. Another significant factor pointed C.W.P.No.15693 of 2007 -3- out by the respondent-State is that the petitioners did not file any objection under Section 5A of the Act and, therefore, they could not raise arguments that alignment of the road cannot be changed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and find that this writ petition lacks merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. The petitioners appear to be happy with the acquisition of their land because they did not file any objection under Section 5A of the Act . The alignment of the road has been changed by keeping in view the financial aspect, road safety and to avoid uprooting of the population. The respondents in para 2 of the preliminary objections as well in para 2 of the reply on merits, have brought on record all the details giving credence to the action of providing curve on the road which looks to be in larger public interest. The Courts are not equipped with the expertise and the justification given is quite plausible. We see no reason to substitute our opinion to the one expressed by experts and respondents. We are satisfied that the acquisition of the land is in larger public interest and no prejudice has been caused to the interest of the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE May 15, 2008 paramjit