JUDGMENT
V.K. Bali, J.
1. By this common order, we propose to decide three connected Civil Writ Petitions bearing No. 10167 of 1997, 10237 of 1997 and 16420 of 1997, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions. The brief facts needs necessary mention have, however, been extracted from CWP 10167 of 1997, Angrej Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
2. Challenge herein is to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 30.6.1997, as also follow up declaration under section 6 read with Section 17 invoking urgency provisions which came to be issued vide notification dated 22.7.1997. The public purpose for which the land has since been acquired is clear from the reading of the notification. The land as clearly mentioned in notification. Annexure P-2, was acquired for constructing Harikekalan Link Drain from RD-0 to 21900 out falling in Escape Channel of Abohar Branch at RD-31000/R in Tehsil Gidderbaha District Mukatsar.
3. The two fold contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their claim is that these notifications deserves to be quashed as there was no urgency at all in the matter and therefore, the petitioners have wrongly been deprived of their valuable right guaranteed to them under the statute by filing objections under Section 5-A of the Act as also that the proposed channel is not suited at a place from where the land has since been acquired and in fact, a channel on the alternative land was more suitable for the outlet in question. Pursuant to notice issued by this court respondents have entered defence and contested the claim of the petitioners by filing written statement.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case. In our considered view, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as noted above have no merit and therefore, these petitions deserves to be dismissed.
5. Coming to the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner it will be seen from para 5 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that during surveying it was observed that sub soil water level was very high. It was also anticipated that coming season can cause havoc in the area. That being so section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was invoked. Due to delaying tactics of petitioners the village Harike Kalan has suffered heavy loss of crops/property which is estimated in crores. It has then been mentioned in para 9 of the written statement that scheme was initiated much earlier but due to delaying tactics of some villagers/petitioners, the project could not be taken in hand. The department considered every proposal put by the petitioners very sympathetically and as all the proposals put by the petitioners have been rejected on technical grounds, the petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court so that their delaying tactics succeed. It has further been mentioned in the written statement of respondents 4 to 10 that petitioners and some other right holders continued with their efforts to delay the process by one way or the other. One suit was filed in the year 1996 and another was filed in the year 1997 and thereafter the present petition was filed. From the above resume of facts, it is still the grouse of the petitioners that efforts to acquire the land in question stated way back in 1996 and yet the notification came to be issued on 30.6.1997. It is interesting to note that the petitioner have themselves given in detail the correspondence that ensued between the departments of the government in para 9 of the writ petition. A chart of the events made in para 9, in our view, would completely demonstrate that there was urgency involved in the matter and the State was moving in the matter as early as it could be. The correspondence between the departments of the Government as tabulated in paragraphs 9 reads as follows :-
————————————————————————————
Despatch No. Date From and to
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
542-43/28L 2.4.1986 From XEN~Drainage Faridkot to
D.C. Muktsar to obtain NOC
regarding drain.
420.J. ML 11.4.1996 D.C. Muktsar sent NOC regarding
drain to XEN Drainage, Faridkot.
480/3L 20.5.1996 Land papers sent by XEN Drainage
Faridkot to S.E. Ferozepur to
acquire the land for drain.
2969-70/3L 24.5.1996 Land papers sent by S.E. Ferozepure
to Land Acquisition Officer,
Patiala to acquire land for drain.
1298/R.C.II 3.6.1996 Land Acquisition Officer, Patiala,
sent back the land acquire case to
S.E. Ferozepore after passing.
1186-89/3L 5.6.1996 S.E. Drainage Ferozepur sent the
case to Chief Engineer, Chandigarh
for notification for land
acquisition document under Articles
4 and 6 section 17 of the Land
Acquisition for the construction of
link drain of Hari Ke Kalan for
from 0 Burji to 21900 length to
Sirhind feeder drainage Burg
No. 31000.
3186-87 12.6.1996 Land Acquisition documents
received in the office of Chief
Engineer, Chandigarh.
18.6.1997 Fax letter from Chief Minister
23.8.1996 to Chief Engineer. Chief Engineer
sent the case back to XEN Faridkot
on saying of Briar".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. A perusal of the dates reproduced above would clearly show that in a matter of days replies were given by the various departments and things were taken to their logical end. After the notification came into being on 30.6.1997, it is the petitioners who blocked finalisation of land acquisition proceedings by filing one suit or the other before the Civil Court. The Government, in our view, in the facts and circumstances of this case cannot be blamed at all for delaying the matter. As mentioned above, the government moved at a fast pace but it is the petitioners themselves who came in the way for delaying acquisition proceedings. So, far as urgency in the matter is concerned, it is well made out from the written statement that the area being highly water logged, the drain had necessarily to be made to check floods which had caused havoc. Members of village panchayat Harike Kalan made representations to the government Annexure R-9, R-9A, and R-9C. In the representation Annexure R-9, it has been mentioned that the members of the panchayat and villagers are suffering since last 12-13 years from water logging and floods which were destroying their crops which is in an area of 5000 Acres and hundreds of houses are being destroyed. The Panchayat had given many applications to Chief Ministers, Minister and Senior Officers of drainage department to give the proposal of open drainage. The respondents have also annexed some photographs of the flood prone area which does depict water logging and flooding of area which is now sought to be saved by making the proposed drain. In view of the facts that have been fully detailed above, we are of the considered view that there was urgency in the matter and the government had not delayed the matter at all. In the facts and circumstances, if the objections under Section 5-A were avoided, no fault can be found with the government on that Court.
7. So, far as second contention of the learned counsel is concerned, this Court is ill equipped to go into the same. It is always for the experts to find out as to which area is the best for acquiring the land. No doubt, in CWP 10237 of 1997 an expert has given the report to suggest that the proposed drain can be made in an alternative area but that report is completely silent with regard to reasons given in the expert report of the department to acquire the land notified under Section 4 of the Act. Be that as it may, as stated above, the Court cannot go into this question and it is always left to the judgment of the experts to find out as to which place is best suited for acquiring the land.
8. Finding no merits in these petitions, the same are dismissed in limine.