IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9308 of 2011 PRADEEP GOSWAMI, son of Late Sudin Goswami, resident of Village – Bishanpur, Post Office – rampur, PS Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur ............. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Chief Secretary, Patna 2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Patna 3. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Patna 4. The Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Patna 5. The District Magistrate of Bhagalpur, D M Khoti, Bhagalpur 6. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, District Bhagalpur 7. The Superintendent Engineer, Ganga Pump Canal District Bhagalpur 8. The Executive Engineer Kahalgaon, Water Resources Department Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur 9. The Executive Engineer Mathurapur, Water Resources Department, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur 10. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Middle Irrigation Pariyojna, Bhagalpur ........... Respondents ----------- 02- 20/6/2011 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Alok Ranjan, learned Assistant Counsel to Govt. Pleader no.17. This writ petition in the nature of a public interest litigation has been preferred for a direction to the State Government to stop Ganga Pump Pariyojna –I , and to desist from acquiring the lands of the land owners of the 12 villages through which the canal is proposed to traverse. It is further stated in the writ petition that there are adequate irrigation facilities in the area in the shape of wells etc. and, 2 therefore, construction of the canal is really not needed in the area. 2. On a perusal of the materials on record and consideration of the submission of the learned government counsel, we are of the view that this Court is generally reluctant to interfere with development projects. It is not possible for us to make an assessment of adequacy of the irrigation facilities in the shape of wells etc. available in the areas and make a comparative assessment with the efficacy of the proposed canal. 3. We do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Amaresh Kumar Lal ) mrl