High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dr. Satinder Dev And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 July, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Satinder Dev And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 July, 2008
CWP No. 3447 of 2008                                                  5

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH



                         CWP No. 3447 of 2008
                         Date of decision: 3.7.2008



Dr. Satinder Dev and another                       ...Petitioners

                         Versus

State of Haryana and others                        ...Respondents.




CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL
        HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY



Present:    Mr. Shailender Jain, Advocate,
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Anil Rathee, Additional Advocate General, Haryana,
            for respondents 1 to 6.

            Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for respondents 11 and 12.


K.S.GAREWAL, J.

CM No.7288 of 2008 is allowed. Replication is taken on

record.

Main case

Dr. Satinder Dev and Paramjit Singh of Barwala, Tehsil and

District Hisar, own 142 kanals and 74 kanals, respectively. Near the

petitioners’ village a thermal plant known as Rajiv Gandhi Khedar Thermal

Power Plant is coming up in village Khedar, over an area of 1250 acres.

Large tracts of land have been acquired for the project. The thermal plant

also requires a huge quantity of water which is to be stored in storage tanks.
CWP No. 3447 of 2008 5

In order to cater for the demand of water, a feeder channel from Sarsana

head was proposed. The channel runs alongside the Bhadawar Distributory

towards Khedar upto RD 45010. The feeder channel then turns to flow

through agricultural fields in order to reach the power plant. The

petitioners’ grievance is that proper alignment of the feeder channel was to

the south of their holdings. But the approved alignment has been made in

such a way that near the holding of petitioner 2, the channel makes a right

angle turn to the right, then flows north for 4 acres to enter the holding of

petitioner 2. Thereafter, the channel takes another right angle turn to the left

and flows right through the holding of petitioner 2 and also to the holding of

petitioner 1. It flows west for 19 acres and takes a right angle turn to the

north to finally reach the thermal plant (the above alignment has been culled

from the site plan Annexure P/3).

The petitioners are naturally aggrieved by the alignment which

has the affect of bifurcating their agricultural holdings. The other grievance

of the petitioners is that the present alignment actually involves two right

angle turns whereas if the channel is aligned in the proper way there would

be only one such turn and the petitioners’ holdings would be saved from

bifurcation.

According to the petitioners, the site plan Annexure P/3 was

obtained by them from the office of Executive Engineer, Adampur, Water

Services Division-respondent 5 under the Right to Information Act. The

site plan Annexure P/3 shows the approved alignment as well as the

proposed alignment. The approved being the one which cuts through the

petitioners’ holdings, while the proposed being the one which flows south of

their holdings.

CWP No. 3447 of 2008 5

The change in the alignment has been allegedly done at the

behest of the private respondents. The petitioners filed representations on

June 12, 2007 and September 20, 2007 (Annexures P/6 and P/7). These

representations were made to the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department.

Some representations were also made to the Chief Minister, Haryana. The

petitioners also served a legal notice dated January 10, 2008 (Annexure

P/10). In nutshell, the petitioners’ submission is that instead of two bends in

the proposed alignment, which affect their holdings, one bend would be

better and would make the channel flow to the south of their holdings,

saving them from bifurcation. Respondents were proposing to acquire the

land by invoking urgency provisions of Section 17 (2) (C ) and 17 (4) of the

Land Acquisition Act, whereunder the petitioners shall be deprived of filing

the objections. The petitioners are seeking a direction that the akshjra/site

plan (Annexure P/3) alongwith its approval be quashed and the respondents

be directed to revert back to the initial alignment of the proposed channel.

The respondents put in appearance and filed reply of Executive

Engineer, Adampur water Services Division, on behalf of respondents 1 to

6. It was pleaded in the reply that the thermal plant was being constructed

to meet the need of electricity in the region. It was being constructed in the

larger public interest and 1100 acres of land has been acquired. Two units

of the power stations would generate 600 MW energy each, and they

required huge quantity of water. Moreover, the feeder channel was to be a

fully covered channel over which huge RCC slabs would be placed. These

slabs are so thick and durable that they can be even used for movement of

traffic including heavy vehicles. There are no chances of the feeder channel

causing any loss or damage. The covered channel would also prevent theft
CWP No. 3447 of 2008 5

of water.

As regards the site plan Annexure P/3, the respondents claimed

that this was not the approved site plan which had been accepted by the

competent authority. The feeder channel suggested by the petitioners was

not viable as a petrol pump and a flour mill came in the way. The approval

of the alignment had already been accorded by the Chief Engineer on

September 19, 2007, after considering all the aspects of the matter. The

approved alignment was Annexure R5/1. The competent authority had also

approved the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act on March 31, 2008 and urgency provision had been

invoked. The thermal power station has to be constructed in a very short

span of time to make it operational in January 2009.

We are of the view that no change in the alignment should be

done after the Chief Engineer has granted approval simply to save the

holdings of some landowners from getting bifurcated. Water has to be

taken through a channel from Sarsana head of Bhadawar Distributory to the

thermal plant. The respondents have categorically stated that the channel

shall be covered by RCC slabs which will enable even heavy vehicles to ply

over it. Therefore, there is no danger of flood damage to the fields through

which the channel shall pass. The alignment has been worked out by

technical experts and we are of the opinion that larger public interest must

be kept in view over the private interest of the petitioners. The channel has

to necessarily pass through the agricultural lands falling in the way. Some

loss of productivity or severance of fields is bound to occur. This can be

adequately compensated through payment of compensation.

We do not think this is the case in which this Court should
CWP No. 3447 of 2008 5

interfere in changing the alignment which has been finally approved by the

Chief Engineer.

This petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.




                                           (K.S. GAREWAL)
                                                   JUDGE



July 3,     2008                        (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
prem                                             JUDGE