This judgment dismisses a writ petition filed by Mukhtiar Singh challenging an order dismissing his review petition regarding a dismantled watercourse. The court found no merit as the petitioner already irrigated his land through a different watercourse.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P. No.2379 of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.2379 of 2006
Date of decision: November 09, 2006
Mukhtiar Singh
.........Petitioner
Versus
The Superintending Canal Officer and Ors. ...........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NIRMAL YADAV
Present: Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner
-.-
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J (Oral)
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2004 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Ludhiana, by which the review petition (Annexure P-6) filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner was not even a party either before the Divisional Canal Officer or the Superintending Canal Officer. Even on merits, the case of the petitioner is that he has suffered an irreparable loss as the watercourse ' AB' has been dismantled by respondent Nos. 3 to 7.
We have perused the site plan, which is annexed with the petition
as Annexure P-1, and perusal of the same shows that the petitioner is already irrigating his land through the watercourse 'CD' , which passes through his
C.W.P. No.2379 of 2006 2
fields and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to have the watercourse at points 'AB' .
We find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE
November 09, 2006 mohan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a claim for the dismantled watercourse after perceiving an alternative watercourse passes through his fields.
Mukhtiar Singh
The Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.
Ashutosh Mohanta
Nirmal Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
