Disposed

Jagtar Singh &Ors. v. Superintending Canal Officer

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2008CWP/17937/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed challenging the cancellation of an order allowing petitioners to irrigate lands from a specific water outlet which no longer existed. The court disposed of the petition with liberty to approach the competent authority for a new outlet application.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application before the competent authority for change of outlet.

Jagtar Singh &Ors. Vs Superintending Canal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

C.W.P No.17937 of 2004

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

¶4

C.W.P No.17937 of 2004

¶5

Date of Decision: 17.11.2008

¶6

Jagtar Singh and others

¶7

....Petitioners.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind and others

¶10

....Respondents.

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Parveen Chander Goel, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶14

Mr. D.K. Kaushal, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.

¶15

None for respondents No.5 and 6.

¶16

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

¶17

Some other land owners from the same village, as the petitioners herein, moved an application for change of watercourse. Their application was allowed by an order dated 11.5.2001 (Annexure P-1), whereby they were allowed to irrigate their lands from Outlet RD 4010-L.

¶18

After the carving out of Outlet RD 4010-L, the petitioners (in the present writ petition) also moved an application for allowing them to irrigate their lands from the same outlet, namely, Outlet RD 4010-L. This request made by the petitioners, was acceded to. Vide an order dated 24.7.2002 (Annexure P-2), the outlet of the petitioners was changed from RD 13362-L to RD 4010-L.

¶19

C.W.P No.17937 of 2004

¶20

¶21

The Outlet RD 4010-L, which was carved out on the basis of the order dated 11.5.2001 (Annexure P-1) was assailed by way of an appeal. The aforestated appeal was allowed on 29.7.2004 (Annexure P-3), whereby the order dated 11.5.2001 (Annexure P-1) vide which Outlet RD 4010-L was carved out, was set aside. Resultantly, Outlet RD 4010-L does not exist any longer. As a natural consequence thereof, the change of the outlet allowed to the petitioners from RD 13362-L to RD 4010-L also came to be negated. It is in these circumstances, that the instant writ petition was filed in this Court.

¶22

In view of the objections raised at the hands of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners states, that he may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition with liberty to move an application before the competent authority for carving out an outlet for the petitioners located closer to their lands.

¶23

The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as has been noticed in the foregoing paragraph, is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶24

The instant writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application before the competent authority for change of outlet, if they are so advised.

¶25

Any interim order passed by this Court stands automatically vacated in terms of our instant order.

¶26

Disposed of accordingly.

¶27

17.11.2008 ( Nirmaljit Kaur ) sk. Judge.

Jagtar Singh &Ors. v. Superintending Canal Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagtar Singh &Ors. v. Superintending Canal Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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.

Parveen and Others Vs Chief Canal Officer and Others

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

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