M.M.KUMAR,J - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged notification dated 9.3.2007 (P-2), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') and declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 6.11.2007 (P-6). The purpose of acquisition is construction of Bye-pass Jind-Gohana Road to Asandh-Jind Road in District Jind. The petitioner after issuance of notification under Section 4, filed objections under Section 5A of the Act and the objections after consideration were rejected. To start with the Land Acquisition Collector after hearing objections recommended the case of the petitioner. In respect of the petitioner Maha Singh, the recommendation of the Collector, dated 28.6.2007 (P-3) reads as under :- "One objector namely Maha Singh son of Inder Singh, resident of village Nirjan stated by producing a Map, that due to falling of their land comprised in Killa No. 54/13 totally in curve in acquisition, the same is going to be totally disturbed. If this curve is put by 10-12 Karam on the upper side, then blind curve shall not be put in their Killa No. 54/13 and some more area of upper Killa No. 54/8 shall be cut as a result of which department shall not suffer any loss nor any new number shall be acquired. In my opinion, keeping in view the objection raised by the objector, if the curve is put on upper side to some extent, then there shall not be any problem in allotment and blind curve shall not come in Killa No. 54/13. Report, alongwith original documents, is submitted for further action."
(2.) WHEN the matter travelled to the respondent State, a report regarding the case of the petitioner and recommendation made by the Collector, was obtained from the Superintending Engineer, Jind Circle, P.W.D. (B&R), Branch, Jind (P- 5). The report reads, thus :- "Regarding the subject, it is reported that I have gone through the objections raised by Maha Singh son of Shri Inder Singh of village Nirjan wherein he has requested for shifting of curve towards killa No. 54/8 and I have also gone through the comments of LAO Hisar. This plea of the LAO should not be entertained as the curves are provided for smooth transition and by shifting the alignment to the upper side on the curve portion will form another curve and thus it will become S-curve instead of simple circular curve and this is more hazardous to traffic and technically S-curves are not preferred instead it should be avoided. Moreover, by shifting of alignment as proposed will change design again. It is further added that if the curve is shifted as proposed by LAO Hisar than we will be entering into killa No. 7 and 14 and these killas belong to some other owners and department will be blamed that this undue benefit has been given to save killa No. 18 at the cost of Killa No. 7 and 14. Keeping in view all the facts, the undersigned is of the opinion that the recommendations made by L.A.O. Hisar on the above subject may be rejected and alignment proposed earlier should only be approved." Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Collector should have been accepted by the respondent State and the land belonging to the petitioner should have been released from acquisition.
(3.) WE have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and are of the view that there is no merit in the instant petition. The respondent State has taken every possible step to consider the objections raised by the petitioner. It was for that reason that a letter was addressed by the Government to the Superintending Engineer and report was given on 31.7.2007 (P-5). According to the report submitted by the Superintending Engineer, which has been duly accepted by the respondent State, the curves are provided for smooth transition and upon shifting the alignment on the upper side of the curve portion, there would be another curve. If the proposal of the Land Acquisition Collector was to be accepted then road was to become S- curve, which is more hazardous to traffic instead of simple circular curve. It was further advised that S-curve are ordinarily avoided and shifting of alignment as per the proposal would have changed design again. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that respondent State has rightly rejected the prayer made by the petitioner. In these circumstances, we find no element of arbitrary exercise of power under Section 48 of the Act by the respondent- State nor there is any infringement of the right of the petitioner. There is, thus, no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.;