MAHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged notification dated 9.3.2007 (P-2), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') and declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 6.11.2007 (P-6). The purpose of acquisition is construction of Bye-pass Jind-Gohana Road to Asandh-Jind Road in District Jind. The petitioner after issuance of notification under Section 4, filed objections under Section 5A of the Act and the objections after consideration were rejected. To start with the Land Acquisition Collector after hearing objections recommended the case of the petitioner. In respect of the petitioner Maha Singh, the recommendation of the Collector, dated 28.6.2007 (P-3) reads as under :-

(2.) WHEN the matter travelled to the respondent State, a report regarding the case of the petitioner and recommendation made by the Collector, was obtained from the Superintending Engineer, Jind Circle, P.W.D. (B&R), Branch, Jind (P- 5). The report reads, thus :-

(3.) WE have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and are of the view that there is no merit in the instant petition. The respondent State has taken every possible step to consider the objections raised by the petitioner. It was for that reason that a letter was addressed by the Government to the Superintending Engineer and report was given on 31.7.2007 (P-5). According to the report submitted by the Superintending Engineer, which has been duly accepted by the respondent State, the curves are provided for smooth transition and upon shifting the alignment on the upper side of the curve portion, there would be another curve. If the proposal of the Land Acquisition Collector was to be accepted then road was to become S- curve, which is more hazardous to traffic instead of simple circular curve. It was further advised that S-curve are ordinarily avoided and shifting of alignment as per the proposal would have changed design again. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that respondent State has rightly rejected the prayer made by the petitioner. In these circumstances, we find no element of arbitrary exercise of power under Section 48 of the Act by the respondent- State nor there is any infringement of the right of the petitioner. There is, thus, no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.