SADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(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).

(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.