AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepak Gupta, Judge
These two writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since identical questions of law and fact are involved in the same and the grievance of both the petitioners is also similar. The petitioners by means of these petitions have prayed for the grant of following similar reliefs:
a) That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued quashing the impugned notification dated 25.8.2010 (Annexure P-1).
b) That the writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents not to implement the Notification or in the alternative, khasra numbers as suggested in the representation (Annexure P-2) and in paras supra be converted and be issued after modification so that the houses of 125 poor minority community may be saved.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the State issued notification dated 25.8.2010 u/s 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of land for construction of Shah Nehar at Kangra. This includes the land of the petitioners. According to the respondents even the awards have been announced on 13.12.2011 and therefore the petitions have become infructuous.
S/Sh. S.D. Gill and Imran Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Krishan Lal Arneja and Others, and Mahender Pal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, and have urged that the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act could not have been invoked since there was no urgency in the matter. We have been informed that though Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked, the possession of the land was actually not taken over till the final award was announced.
Be that as it may, the final award has now been announced and the possession has been taken over. The construction of the Canal is definitely a matter of public interest and the State is well within its right to acquire the land for construction of the Canal. From the reply, we also find the proposal of the villagers for re-alignment of the Canal was also considered by the Expert Bodies and thereafter the land was acquired. The alignment of the Canal is not to be decided on the whims and fancies of the land owners but has to be settled by the experts in the field which has been done in the present case. Once the acquisition proceedings are complete no petition to challenge the initial notification can lie and the remedy of the petitioners lies somewhere else. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the petitions which are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.