GOPI Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts, giving rise to the petition, are as follows:

(2.) There is a perennial water-source, known as Rukamani Kund, situated in village Ropaid, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. Kuhls, taken from this water-source, irrigate lands, situated in villages Bhajwani, Kallar, and Hirapur, Tehsil Ghumarwin and also run gharats in villages Bhajwani and Kallar. In the year 1955, the Public Works Department had chalked out a scheme, under the Five Years Plan, for the construction of a pucca kuhl from Rukamani Kund, to he known as RukamaniBaroa- Kuhl, for providing irrigational facilities for the villages of Baroa, Hirapur and Bhajwani. In pursuance of the scheme, a pucca channel for the kuhl was constructed. But the water from the source, Rukamani-Kund, could not he let in the channel, as objections, against the flow of water into the channel were raised by persons whose gharats were run, from the water. Their objection was that if the water were supplied to the Rukamani-Baroa-Kuhl, no water would be available for running their gharats and they would be deprived of their source of livelihood. The Government looked into the objection and tried to accommodate the proprietors of the gharats. But no satisfactory solution could be evolved. Ultimately, the Government decided to acquire the gharats, situated in villages Bhajwani and Kallar. Notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), were issued on the 26th February, 1962, and the 21st June, 1962, with respect to villages Kallar and Bhajwani, respectively. Notifications, containing declarations, under Section 6 of the Act, wore made on the 28th July. 1962 and 29th September, 1962.

(3.) The petitioners, who have been adversely affected by the acquisition, have filed the present petition, impugning the validity of the acquisition proceedings, initiated with the issue of the notifications under Section 4 of the Act. The grounds of attack, against the proceedings, are: (1) that the acquisition was not for a public purpose; (2) that the acquisition was not bona fide as it was intended to benefit only some ten influential families of village Baroa; (3) that the notifications, under Section 4 of the Act, were defective, illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as Himachal Pradesh Administration, which had issued the notifications, was not the legally constituted authority to issue them and the Joint Secretary who had signed the notifications was not competent to do so; (4) that the substance of notifications, under Section 4 of the Act, was not given publicity in the locality as required by Section 4(1) of the Act; and (5) that no enquiry as contemplated by Section 5-A(2) of the Act was conducted.