Allowed

Parveen and Others v. Chief Canal Officer and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2008CWP/1389/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside an order of the Chief Canal Officer that favored Nafe Singh's water claim without hearing the petitioners. The Court held that the Chief Canal Officer failed to afford an opportunity of hearing to rival parties, rendering the impugned order unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.12.2007 set aside; petitioners and respondent No. 7 directed to appear on 15.12.2008 for hearing.

Parveen and Others Vs Chief Canal Officer and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 1389 of 2008 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No. 1389 of 2008 Date of decision: 17.11.2008

¶4

Parveen and others

¶5

........Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Chief Canal Officer, Haryana Sinchai Bhawan, Panchkula and others

¶8

.......Respondent(s)

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶10

-.-

¶11

Present: Mr. C R Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioners

¶12

Mr. Surinder Kumar Bishnoi,DAG, Haryana for respondents No. 1 to 3

¶13

Mr. S.R.Hooda, Advocate for respondents no. 4, 5 and 7

¶14

-.-

¶15

J.S.Khehar, J. (Oral)

¶16

During the course of hearing, the solitary contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners, was that in the impugned order passed by the Chief Canal Officer dated 12.12.2007 (Annexure P-3), wherein the appellate authority dealt with the claim of Nafe Singh son of Chet Ram by allowing Nafe Singh the right to irrigate his land from outlet RD 6815/L was wholly unjustified as in spite of the fact that Nafe Singh had not preferred any appeal against the order passed by the Superintendent Canal Officer, Yamuna Water Services Division 3, Shamnath Marg, Delhi, dated 10.10.2006 (Annexure P-2). The Chief Canal Officer afforded him an

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No. 1389 of 2008 2

¶18

opportunity of hearing and even accepted his plea.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondents, while acknowledging, that no appeal had been preferred by Nafe Singh against the order dated 10.10.2006 (Annexure P-2), also acknowledged in response to a query made by the Court, that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of hearing to respond to the determination at the hands of the appellate authority, that Nafe Singh was to be allowed to irrigate his land from outlet RD 6815/L. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied, that before passing an order, which the petitioners claimed to be adverse to them, no opportunity, whatsoever, was afforded to them, to project their case as against the determination rendered in favour of Nafe Singh.

¶20

In view of the above, we are satisfied, that the impugned order passed by the Chief Canal Officer dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure P-3) deserves to be set aside qua Nafe Singh. The same is accordingly set aside qua Nafe Singh. The Chief Canal Officer, Panchkula, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the rival parties before passing any order one way or the other. Our instant determination is based on the mandate of Section 20 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, wherein suo-motto power is vested with the appellate authority, to call for the record of any case pending before it or disposed of by any subordinate authority and pass such order in relation thereto, as may be appropriate.

¶21

In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied, that the Chief Canal Officer, Panchkula never taken into consideration the claim of Nafe Singh even though Nafe Singh had not preferred an appeal as against the order passed by Superintending Canal Officer, Yamuna Water Services

¶22

Civil Writ Petition No. 1389 of 2008 3

¶23

Division 3 dated 10.10.2006.

¶24

The instant order be not taken as an expression of opinion, one way or the other at our hands.

¶25

The petitioners, as well as respondent No. 7, are directed to appear before the Chief Canal Officer, Panchkula on 15.12.2008. Order dasti on payment of usual charges.

¶26

[J.S.Khehar] Judge

¶27

[Nirmaljit Kaur] Judge November 17, 2008 mohan

Parveen and Others v. Chief Canal Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen and Others v. Chief Canal Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Bala Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Mansa Ram Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Jagtar Singh &Ors. Vs Superintending Canal Officer

Bhajan Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Nachhatar Kaur Ans Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.