The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to clear a blockage in a storm-water drain constructed but not acquired. The Court held it cannot order eviction of landowners or admit claims of ownership.
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.7981 of 2007
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.7981 of 2007 Date of decision: September 10, 2008.
Ram Singh & Ors.
... Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
Present: Shri Kamaljit Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Shri H.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents.
ORDER
T.S. Thakur, CJ – (Oral)
A storm-water drain appears to have been constructed by the Irrigation and Drainage Department of the Government of Punjab in the District of Ferozepur for the benefit of villagers living in some of the villages in that District. The land required for digging the drain was not, however, acquired by the State. The owners appear to have allowed the use
Civil Writ Petition No.7981 of 2007 -: 2 :-
of the land for their own benefit as also for the benefit of others who may have been affected by water-logging and flood in the area. It now appears that some of those who own their property in the vicinity of the drain, have encroached upon the drain thereby blocking the drain and the smooth flow of the water in the same. The present writ petition seeks a direction to the respondents to clear the blockage and restore the drain.
The respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which it is, inter-alia , pointed out that the alleged encroachment is over land which does not legally vest in the respondent-State as the land was never acquired by the Government. That apart, those who have occupied the land appear to have approached the civil court in different civil actions for relief. This has prevented the respondents from keeping the drain clear and flowing.
The question whether a drain is required and, if so, whether it can be provided by acquiring land or without such acquisition, is a matter which must be determined by the concerned authorities. If the drain has got blocked or has been encroached upon, there is no way we can direct those who have encroached upon the area, to be evicted are owners of the land or at least claiming ownership over the same.
That apart, the question whether the need for a drain is so compelling as to force the respondents to acquire the land for the same, is a matter on which we need not express any opinion. That aspect can be better left to the executive. All that we need say is that the petitioner would be free to approach the authorities concerned to persuade them to take action by way of acquisition of the land needed for the drain, in which event the authorities may examine the request and take an appropriate decision. Beyond that, it is neither necessary nor proper for us to say anything.
Civil Writ Petition No.7981 of 2007
-: 3 :-
This writ petition is disposed of with the above observations
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
[ T.S. Thakur ] Chief Justice
September 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can direct eviction of encroachers who are owners or claim owners of land after a storm-water drain was constructed without land acquisition.
Whether the Court can direct response to clear a storm-water drain encroached upon by owners or claim owners of the land.
Ram Singh & Ors.
State of Punjab & Ors.
T.S. Thakur
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
