This writ petition challenged the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer allowing restoration of an old watercourse. The Bench dismissed the petition, holding that the department had already replaced the abandoned outlet with a new pucca watercourse and there was no material to show the new arrangement was insufficient.
null
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.
CWP No.3203 of 2004
1
IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 3203 of 2004 Date of decision: 9.12.2008
Angrej Singh and others
....Petitioners.
vs.
Superintending Canal Officer and others.
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR.
Present: Mr.S.K.Laddi Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Reeta Kohli, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. D.S.Brar, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral)
Through the instant writ petition the petitioners have sought to impugn the eventual order which came to be passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot dated 15.9.2004. Through the impugned order, the canal authorities eventually allowed the claim of the petitioner for restoration of the watercourse.
The claim of the petitioners is based on the fact that the “mussavi” placed on the record of the writ petition as Annexure P2 prepared at the time of consolidation depicts the land over which the watercourse supplying irrigation to the land of the petitioners travelled. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said
CWP No.3203 of 2004
2
watercourse which was in existence ever since irrigation facilities were allowed to the petitioners have been dismentalled by respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is, therefore, their claim that the earlier watercourse provided during the course of consolidation be restored, so as to enable the petitioners to irrigate their land from the watercourse which had been provided originally.
In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is the categoric assertion at the hands of the respondents that the watercourse available at the time of consolidation was subsequently abandoned by the Canal Department and a new water outlet at Burji No.52439-R and pucca watercourse were re-aligned keeping in view the circumstances prevailing at the site. Although, it is conceded in the response filed by the respondents that originally the petitioner, as well as, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were getting irrigation out of outlet No. 5014-R. It is asserted that the same was shifted to new Mogha No.52439-R during the course of re-alignment of the watercourse. It is also the case of the respondents that the irrigation provided to the petitioners by the Canal Authorities is now from a pucca watercourse, and as such, the claim of the petitioners for restoration of the watercourse is wholly misconceived.
We have considered the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as has been noticed in the foregoing paragraph, as also the response thereto by the respondents. We are of the view that this is not a case of restoration of watercourse at all. Although it is not a matter of dispute that the petitioners, as well as, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were drawing irrigation originally from outlet No. 5014-R, the same was abandoned by the Canal Authorities when irrigation was provided to the petitioners from new Mogha No.52439-R. It is also the case of the
CWP No.3203 of 2004
3
respondents that the Canal Department has provided a pucca watercourse to irrigate the land of the petitioners from Mogha No.52439-R. Thus viewed, it is not possible for us to accept that the watercourse under reference, which is being claimed by the petitioners was ever demolished by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In fact, the Canal Authorities themselves substituted the earlier outlet from Burji No. 5014-R to new Mogha No. 52439-R and also provided a pucca water channel to the petitioners. Assertions made by the respondents in the written statement to the aforesaid effect have not been controverted by the petitioners either by filing a replication or placing any material on the record of this case. Thus viewed, we find no merit in the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that the watercourse which provides irrigation to the petitioners is not appropriate on account of the fact that the height of the land over which the watercourse,now traverses, is lower than the land of the petitioners. No material whatsoever, has been placed on the record of this case in order to demonstrate insufficient irrigation to the land of the petitioners, either on account of the height of the land of the petitioners or for any other reason. It is,therefore, not possible for us to accept the instant contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Even otherwise, we find no justification whatsoever to interfere in the impugned orders dated 26.12.2001 (Annexure P5), 6.2.2002 (Annexure P6) and order dated 4.12.2003 (Annexure P8) passed by the revenue authorities. This view of ours, is based on the fact that in case the claim of the petitioners is accepted, the land of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 will
CWP No.3203 of 2004 4
be divided into two “tucks” inasmuch as, the canal which is claimed by the petitioners will bifurcate the land of respondent Nos.3 and 4. There is no justification whatsoever for adopting the aforesaid course of action in the background of the fact that the petitioners are being allowed irrigation through a pucca watercourse which does not have the said adverse effect.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge
December 9, 2008 rk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the canal authorities' order allowing the restoration of an original watercourse that had been abandoned and replaced by the department.
Whether the alternative pucca watercourse provided by the authorities is sufficient given the petitioners' contention regarding land height.
Angrej Singh and others
Superintending Canal Officer
J.S. Khedar
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
