M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS petition filed by Sadhu Singh and 18 other petitioners is directed against notifications dated 14.9.2007 (P-11) issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(2)(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as per amendment vide Punjab Act 11 of 1954 Act 17 of 1956 Act 31 of 1966 Act (for brevity 'the Act') and further declaration dated 15.10.2007 (P-12) issued under Section 6 of the Act. The land has been acquired for a public purpose for constructing Shahbad Feeder Canal by changing the alignment.
(2.) THE petitioners have claimed that to start with notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(2)(c) of the Act was issued on 20.3.2007 which was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 20.4.2007. According to the aforementioned notification and declaration the Shahbad Feeder Canal was to be constructed on the alignment shown in red colour in the site plan (P-2) which was far away from the abadi of the villages Rajokheri, Subhri, Tandwali and Tandwal. According to the petitioners, the alignment as per the impugned notification issued on 14.9.2007 and declaration dated 15.10.2007 (P-11 and 12 respectively) has been changed in such a manner that it create danger to the residential area belonging to the petitioners. It is alleged that even the roads maintained by Gram Panchayat facilitating the residential area have been included in the acquisition. There are allegations of mala fide against Sh. Phool Chand Mullana, Ex-Education Minister, Haryana, now President Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee in changing the earlier acquisition made under notification dated 23.3.2007 (P-8) and 20.4.2007(P-9). It has been alleged that the notification dated 14.9.2007 (P-10) excluding certain area of the land, has been issued under Section 48(1) of the Act at the instance of Sh. Phool Chand Mullana and the land belonging to Sarvshri Kesar Singh, Raunki Ram, Swaran Singh Nagra, Baldev Singh and Ram Chander, who are close supporters of the aforesaid minister, has been released and the alignment of the canal has been changed to the detriment of the petitioners. The notification has been attacked on the ground that urgency provision of Section 17 (2)(c) has been invoked without any legal justification and merely to defeat the rights of the petitioners to file objections under Section 5A of the Act. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that once there was sufficient time extending to many months invoking Section 5A of the Act would have caused a delay of only 30 days which could easily be granted to the petitioners. The petitioners have also tried to substantiate the impending danger to their residential houses by placing on record annexures P-3 to P-7 and rough side plan (P-2). In the written statement filed on behalf respondents No. 1 to 3, the stand taken is that Dadupur Nalvi Irrigation Scheme has been designed for the purpose of providing irrigation facilities in the area because there is no natural resource or canal in existence in the area and that continuous pumping of water has considerably lower the water table in the area. The scheme has been sanctioned and the contracts for up stream and down stream reaches of the said canal have already been awarded. It has been stated that joining of this gap, which is covered by the notification dated 14.9.2007 (P-11) and 15.10.2007 (P-12) with the down stream irrigation system is of utmost necessity of making irrigation system functional. On that account invoking Section 17(2)(c) of the Act has been justified. It is further pleaded that respondent-State has already invested more than Rs. 80 crores in the scheme and the urgency of acquiring the land through which the alignment of the canal flows is self explanatory. Flaying the fears of the petitioners that on account of acquisition, the residential deras of population would be endangered by floods, respondent -State has asserted that such fears are baseless because sufficient provision for cross drainage works have already been made in the approved L-section of the canal which has been marked in Pink colour on the approved alignment plan (R-1). Site plan R-1 shows that there is one drainage crossing provided at Km. 44.200 and an inlet has also been provided at Km. 48.000 to take the flood water into the canal and ultimately discharging the same in the river Markanda. It has further been promised that if at later stage, it becomes necessary, then the drainage plan can be supplemented. The allegation of political interference by the then Education Minister has been totally denied being unfounded. Respondent-State has pointed that the total length of the canal along with this alignment was 7.863 Km. under the old notifications issued on 20.3.2007 and 20.4.2007 (P-8 and 9) and there were four bridges on metelled road which required to be constructed. However, on the change of alignment being along with the boundary line of the villages Subhri, Rajokheri, Tandwali and Tandwal, the lands of the owners has not been bifurcated and the length of the canal has been substantially reduced by 681 meters which has also reduced the construction of one bridge. The State exchequer has been able to save more than Rs. 70 lacs by way of acquiring 2.339 acres less area of land and in addition it has saved the cost of one bridge and construction cost of 681 meters canal length. Therefore, it has been pointed out that Sh. Phool Chand Mullana-respondent No. 4 has no role in the change of alignment which has been done totally on technical and economical considerations. The second alignment as shown in yellow line route (R-1) was also much higher than the presently adopted alignment. In second para of the preliminary objections, the details of the scheme has been given which is known as Dadupur Nalvi Irrigation Scheme prepared in 1986. The Scheme envisages utilisation of surplus waters of Ravi Beas to run the canal system through out the year which was awaiting the approval of the Central Water Commission. The aforementioned scheme had to be deferred by the respondent- State in the year 1990 till the availability of water of Ravi Beas and clearance of the same has been obtained from the Centre Water Commission /Planning commission of India (R-2 and 3 respectively). Since the issue concerning Satluj Yamuna Link Canal in Punjab area could not be decided and water table in the vicinity was going down steeply, it was considered appropriate by the respondent-State to immediately construct unlined channel (Kachha) for re-charging of the area. The Shahbad Feeder Canal has been revived to utilise the monsoon water in river Yamuna for running the canal system under the scheme which was acquired in principle by Central Water Commission, New Delhi vide letter dated 6.7.2004 (R-4). The scheme will fulfill the requirements of North Eastern region of Haryana located at the right side of Western Yamuna Canal and left side of SYL Canal. This area is devoid of any surface irrigation though it comprised of fertile soil with intensive cultivation. The area is being irrigated by tube wells due to which the pressure on ground water is very high resulting into lowering of the water table. This scheme would also improve the water table by recharging the area and reducing the load on tube wells and utilising the available surplus Yamuna water during monsoon season which otherwise goes waste down stream of Hathnikund Barrage and also caused floods in the down stream area. The canal is proposed to be kept unlined to encourage recharging of underground water through canal network provided in the project and it will serve the dual purpose of recharging of ground water and to check the steady fall in the ground water by using the surplus Yamuna water in rainy season. Therefore, it has been emphasized that the scheme is of utmost importance and needs to be implemented at the earliest in the larger interest of the public for which contracts have already been awarded and execution of the work has been taken in the reaches of upstream and downstream of the canal portion. Referring to the utility of the canal, it is stated that it cannot be achieved till the gap in reach under notification is joined for which the respondents have justified the invocation of Section 17 of the Act which sub serves a great public purpose and the Government has recorded its satisfaction with regard to the urgency under Section 17(2)(c) of the Act and dispensing with Section 5A of the Act as per provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act. It has also been asserted that this Court in a number of civil writ petitions including C.W.P.No. 5078 of 2005 decided on 26.9.2005 has rejected the claim made by certain other petitioners regarding acquisition of their land for construction of Shahbad Feeder Distributory (R-5).
(3.) IN his separate written statement filed by Sh. Phool Chand Mullana- respondent No. 4, the allegation of mala fide has been specifically and categorically denied. It has been specifically pleaded that the allegation have been levelled without any substantial material and that he has not been interfering with the acquisition proceedings. It has been specifically denied that it was at his instance that the alignment of the canal has been changed as the whole matter has been decided by the Government itself. It has further been pointed out that the fact of economic statistics speaks in volumes and justifies the change in the alignment.;