JASWANT SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment of ours will dispose of the above mentioned writ petitions as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.

(2.) THE Government of Haryana took a decision to construct a canal to be called "Hansi - Butana Canal" with a view to take waters to the parched areas of the State and initiated steps to achieve the aforesaid objective which was sought to be stone-walled by a spate of writ petitions challenging its action on various grounds which we propose to delineate and discuss in the course of search for an answer to the controversy raised in the said petitions.

(3.) C .W.P. No. 13404 of 2005 In this petition, Phul Singh and others, by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents therein not to take the canal which is proposed to be constructed from village Azimgarh, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal to village Aanta, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind through the villages Ramgarh Rorh, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and at a distance of less than one acre from the village abadi. The principal challenge to the action of the State is that the scheme for digging the canal has not been published in accordance with law and its path has not been finalised by resorting to a proper survey and that no public notice has been issued to the persons, who are likely to be affected adversely. The non-publication of the scheme has been said to be against the provisions of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (for short, 'the 1974 Act'). Even though, such a plea was not pleaded in as many words in the writ petition, yet, being a question of law, it has been vehemently put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments. It is also necessary to notice here that this writ petition was filed on 22.8.2005 and the first order passed by this Court was on 29.8.2005 noticing the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the draft scheme was never published in accordance with the rules as neither the notice had been served upon the petitioners by affixing it at a conspicuous place in the village nor the villagers of village Ramgarh Rorh, who are vitally affected by laying down of the canal were granted opportunity of hearing.