2007 Supreme(P&H) 1366

2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 2556
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijender Jain, Chief Justice
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No. 19676 of 2005
Jaswant Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 23/07/2007}

IMPORTANT POINT
Writ of Certiorari—Relevant material and pleadings—Only the propositions as raised in the writ petitions need to be answered—Controversy not pleaded originally and which came into existence by way of ancillary material has to be thwarted and negated.
Objections--Section 17 confers extra-ordinary powers on the appropriate Government under which it can dispense with the normal procedure laid down under Section 5-A in exceptional cases of urgency.
Acquisition of Land—Once the award is passed and compensation accepted, the acquisition is complete for all intents and purposes and the possession vests in the State.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4, 6 & 17(2)—Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, Section 2(1), 17, 18 and 19—Construction of Bhakra Main Line, Hansi Branch—Butana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel—Policy decision—Invocation of the urgency provisions—Challenge to the action of the State on the ground that digging of canal was not proceeded by a scheme—That scheme was not published in accordance with the provisions of Sections 17 & 18 of the 1974 Act--Contention rejected--Held; A conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 2(1), 17, 18 and 19 of the 1974 Act clearly reveals that the preparation of a draft scheme and publication thereof is envisaged if the sub-component of a canal, i.e., watercourses which essentially means a channel and outlets are to be constructed, maintained or altered. There is no requirement in these provisions which would require that such an exercise has to be undertaken in case of construction of a canal. (Para 42)

       (B) Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226—Policy decision—Plea of malafides—Construction of Bhakra Main line, Hansi Branch—Butana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel—State action—The canal is said to have a length of more than 110 Kms.—Travelling in four districts—Petitioners are concentrated in the area of just 8 Kms. in one district—Neither the Chief Minister against whom the allegations have been made, has been impleaded as a party nor has any material been shown to substantiate the fact that the canal is being constructed only to benefit his constituency—Contention rejected. (Para 43)

       (C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 17(2), 5A, 4 and 6—Invocation of emergency provisions—Urgent pressing need—High priority project—Construction of Bhakra Main Line, Hansi Branch—Butana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel—Policy decision—Primary object to carry about 0.80 M.A.F. water to cater the needs of the southern districts of Haryana—Held; A project of such magnitude has to be carried out on urgent basis—Even minor delay can lead to massive out flow of funds from the State exchequer in the escalation of costs—It is a case where the public policy and the public interest have been converged to achieve the betterment of millions. (Para 52, 50 and 47)

       (D) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 5-A, 17, 4 and 6—Hearing of objections—Dispensation thereof—Invocation of urgency provisions—Case of a public policy and the public interest—Government project of taking the water to the lesser irrigated areas—Urgency and public purpose involved—Exact purpose of acquisition has been made in the Notification—Held; State showing its intent to acquire the land on emergent basis cannot be tinkered with lightly. Mere allegation of being deprived of right to file objections will not render the acquisition proceedings void unless some prejudice is shown. (Para 54)

       (E) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 17, 4, 6 and 5-A —Public purpose—Invocation of urgency provision—Acquisition of Land—Sovereign power to exercise right of eminent domain—Held;

       (i) State showing its intent to acquire the land on emergent basis cannot be tinkered with lightly.

       (ii) Section 17 of the 1894 Act confers extra-ordinary powers on the appropriate Government under which it can dispense with the normal procedure laid down under Section 5-A in exceptional cases of urgency

       (iii) Such urgency must be reflected from the subjective satisfaction of the concerned authorities keeping in mind the nature of public purpose, the real urgency and the demands of the situation. (Para 54 and 55)

       (G) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Public purpose—There has to be a harmonious construction of the needs of the public and the policies of the State to enhance and achieve economic, social and over-all development. What is the public purpose is also the satisfaction of the State. (Para 6)

       (H) Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226—Writ of Certiorari—Relevant material and pleadings—Only the propositions as raised in the writ petitions need to be answered—Controversy not pleaded originally and which came into existence by way of ancillary material has to be thwarted and negated. (Para 38)

       (I) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4 & 6—Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226—Acquisition of land—Public purpose—Technical object of project—Judicial review—Construction of Bhakra Main Line, Hansi Branch—Butana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel—Policy decision—Quashing of notification—Interalia held;—

       (i) The Court neither has the expertise nor the technical know-how to evaluate the contentions raised by the petitioners on this aspect of the matter.

       (ii) The Courts cannot substitute their opinion where the decision making involves technical aspects of the matter.

       (iii) The Court cannot look into the technical feasibility of such projects.

       (J) Environment Protection 1986, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4, 6 and 17—Acquisition of Land—Construction of Bhakra Main Line Hansi Branch—Butana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel—The permission of the pollution Department of the State has not taken—Benefit of the project, out way the damage, if any, caused the environment—Such a project cannot be scuttled on the alter of protection of environment. (Para 60)

       (K) Constitution of India, 1950, Articles, 226—Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4 and 6—Writ of Certiorari—Principle of Acquiescence—Acquisition of land—Petitioner have already accepted the compensation—Possession of land having been taken—Petitioner have no right to maintain their challenge in any mode as they have consciously acquiesced to the process of acquisition. (Para 62)

       (L) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4, 6—Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226—Acquisition of land—Project is farther towards its goal of completion—Disentitle the petitioner to lay any challenge to the proceedings—Held; Once the award is passed and compensation accepted, the acquisition is complete for all intents and purposes and the possession vests in the State. (Para 62)

       (M) Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226—Public Interest Litigation—Petitioner is a result of an ingenuous mind with a purpose other than a public purpose—Petitioner have donned the cloak of public interest—It is important to unmask him. (Para 61)