The court rejected the petitioner's challenge to an order redirecting an irrigation water channel. Holding that the slight elevation difference was inconsequential to the petitioner but avoided dividing a respondent's land, the writ 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.
Civil Writ Petition No. 20493 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 20493 of 2008 Date of decision: 05.12.2008
Narender
........Petitioner
Versus
Chief Canal Officer and others .......Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner
-.-
J.S.Khehar, J. (Oral)
Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P5), vide which the Chief Canal Officer/LCU, Haryana Irrigation Department, Panchkula, has altered the water channel granted to the petitioner by the other canal authorities from point 'AB' (depicted in the site plan, Annexure P-6) to the edge of the land of respondent No. 4. A perusal of the impugned order reveals, that the water channel 'AB' allowed to the petitioner would have divided the land of respondent No. 4 into two taks , and it is that, which had weighed with the Chief Canal Officer/LCU, Haryana Irrigation Department, Panchkula, to change it from the aforesaid point to point 'XY' (marked by us in the site plan, Annexure P-6).
It is open to the petitioner to assail the determination rendered
Civil Writ Petition No. 20493 of 2008 2
by the Chief Canal Officer/LCU, Haryana Irrigation Department, Panchkula, in substituting the water channel 'AB' with water channel 'XY'. This is exactly, what is being actually sought to be done by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this behalf, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the bed of the water channel from where the petitioner is to draw irrigation is at 732.04 FSL (feet above sea level), and as such, providing irrigation from water channel 'XY' would not be possible, as the entry point would be at 732.88 FSL. Insofar as, the instant contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, we are of the view, that the same is inconsequential. The minimum height of the land of the petitioner is at FSL 732.88 and the maximum height is at FSL 732.97. Whatever be the level of the source, the water must traverse and reach FSL 732.88 to reach the land of the petitioner. There is hardly any difference between FSL 732.88 and FSL 732.97, inasmuch as, the said would be a difference of about 2 inches (at the most), whether the point of entry of the irrigation channel to the land of the petitioner is at point 'B' (as was determined by the Divisional Canal Officer) or at point 'X' (as has been determined by the Chief Canal Officer), there would be hardly any effect on the flow of water. Since we are of the view, that it would make no difference to the petitioner for irrigating his land whether he gets water at point 'B' or point at 'X', we are satisfied, that the petitioner should be allowed irrigation from point 'Y' alone, as this would make all the difference to respondent No. 4 because by shifting of water course from 'AB' to 'XY', the land of the respondent No. 4 will no longer be bifurcated into two taks .
Civil Writ Petition No. 20493 of 2008 3
It would be unfair on our part not to notice the second contention advanced at the hands of learned counsel for the petitioner. In this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the order dated 04.06.2008 (Annexure P-4), wherein, the Superintending Canal Officer, Y.W.S. Circle, Rohtak, has noticed the following submissions advanced on behalf of respondent No. 4:-
“He added that the case may be remanded back to D.C.O, Gohana, to re-decide as Shri O.P. Chugh, Advocate stated that they are ready to give the water course in question to the appellant on the basis of exchange of land to land instead of any compensation.”
It is not possible for us to accept the plea advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner noticed above on account of the following observations recorded in the latter part of the same order, wherein, it was noted as under:-
“Later on the appellant denied and stated that the water course may be sanctioned from the western side of field No. 67/20 instead of from field No.67/19 on the basis of exchange of land to land and land may be given to him from the field No. 67/11 southern side from the land of the respondent.”
Since the respondents had withdrawn the concession made during the course of the same proceedings, the respondents cannot be bound down to the same.
For the reasons as we have noticed while disposing of the first plea advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of view
Civil Writ Petition No. 20493 of 2008 4
firstly, that there is hardly any difference to the petitioner, if he is allowed to irrigate his land from watercourse 'AB' or alternatively from watercourse 'XY'. But on the contrary, it makes all the difference to respondent No. 4, if the water channel is provided from 'AB', inasmuch as, the same would bifurcate his land. This would not be so, if the watercourse passes over 'XY', as has been allowed by the Chief Canal Officer, vide the impugned order dated 10.10.2008( Annexure P-5).
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
[Nirmaljit Kaur] Judge December 05, 2008 mohan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to water irrigation from the original boundary which would have divided the respondent's land into two halves.
Whether the petitioner's altitude difference between two entry points renders the administrative change in the water channel impracticable.
Narender
Chief Canal Officer and others
J.S. Khehar
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
