Bhuvaniram And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.

Heard.

By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 5/2/2013 issued u/S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1985 as also the declaration dated 29/8/2013 issued u/S.6 of the Act.

The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the land mentioned in para 5.2 of the writ petition and their land is affected in construction of the Onkareshwar Udhvahan Canal Project (IV Phase). The allegation of the petitioner is that the path of the canal was changed to benefit 9 influential agriculturists and the objections of the petitioners u/S.5-A as also the complaints have not been properly decided.

The respondents have filed their reply placing on record the status as on the date of filing of the reply ie. on 27/10/2014. As per the reply by that time out of the total approximate cost of the project of Rs.868 crores the work of Rs.543 crores was already over and the respondents were proposing to provide water for irrigation by June, 2015. The scheme was for providing water for irrigation of 28073 hectare of land in Khargone and 29947 hectare of land in Dhar district. The work of construction of canal in question at the time of filing of the reply was at the advanced stage. The award was already passed and the land in question had stood vested in the State government and the mutation in the revenue record was also carried out. The necessary documents in this regard were filed by the respondents as Annexure R/1 and R/2 along with their reply.

So far as the allegation of the petitioners that the path of the canal was changed to benefit 9 influential agriculturists, a perusal of the reply reveals that there was no change in path of the canal. As per the DPR, in the construction of the canal, the land of the petitioner was coming and the path was determined considering the topography of the land to ensure free flow of water from the canal. The reply reflects that though against the original DPR certain representations were submitted and the possibility of new alignment was explored but no change in the DPR was made. Hence, the allegation of the petitioners that the path of the canal was changed on account of the influence by 9 big farmers has no substance.

So far as the allegation of the petitioners that their objections u/S.5-A of the Act as well as the complaints have not been properly decided, the respondents have placed on record the decision of the objections along with their reply. Annexure R/7 filed along with the reply reveal that the petitioners objections have duly been considered and have been decided.

That apart, counsel for State from the record of the State government has also pointed out that mean while construction of the canal has been completed and the petitioners are beneficiary of the construction of the canal as they are irrigating land by drawing water from the canal.

Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the impugned notification u/S.4(1) of the Act as also the declaration u/S.6 of the Act do not suffer from any error and there is no merit in raising challenge to these notifications and declarations. Hence, no case is made out to interfere in the present writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.