Dismissed

Jagdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Aug 2009CWP/10829/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the proposed construction of a drain near his land, fearing bifurcation and overflow. The Court held that the drain falls on PWD land along a water course and bed levels do not permit overflow, allowing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's grievance was dismissed as the construction does not affect the petitioner's land and no overflow is likely.

Jagdev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Municipal and Town Planning | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition 10829 of 2009

¶4

Date of decision: 10.8.2009

Jagdev Singh

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and ors

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr OP Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr HS Gill, DAG Punjab.

¶11

S.S. SARON, J.

¶12

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶13

The contention of the petitioner is that he is owner of land comprised in Rectangle 143 Killa Nos.23/1 (2-2), 23/2/1 (1-6), 24/2 (7-7) and Rectangle 143 Killa Nos.16/2/2 (0-5), 17/1/1 (1-15), situated in village Shamkot, District Muktsar. His grievance is that the respondents are going to dig a drain as shown in blue colour in the site plan (P1).

¶14

During the course of hearing, it is the stand of Mr Kamboj that in between the land of the petitioner, which is along with Kolianwala passage in Khasra No.227 towards the East and land which is further East in the site plan (P1), there is a defence road and the construction of the drain as shown in blue colour in the site plan (P1) along with defence road is not seriously objected. His grievance is with regard to construction of the drain

¶15

from Kolianwala passage in Khasra No.227 along the water course in Khasra No.338 to the point where the drain turns along the defence road

¶16

CWP 10829 of 2009

¶17

¶18

and the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra No.23/1 would be bifurcated.

¶19

Mr Gill, learned DAG Punjab has referred to the written statement and stated that the drain which is going to be constructed is in the land of the PWD, B&R department and adjoins the defence road. It is further submitted, on instructions from Sh Gurwaryam Singh, SDO Drainage, Bathinda Drainage Sub Division, Bathinda, who is present in Court, that the drain to be constructed from Kolianwala passage in Khasra No.227 along the water course in Khasra No.338, is not to be constructed in the land of the petitioner but is to be constructed along the water course. It is also stated that the water of the drain to be constructed would be kept separate from the canal water course.

¶20

In the written statement filed by the Department, it is stated that the respondents are to dig out the water channel to drain out the dirty water of Dhani Kundan Singh village Sham Kot to Abulkhurana Drain. It is further stated that the respondents are constructing the water channel from Dhani Kundan Singh village Sham Kot to Abulkhurana Drain adjoining to the defence road in the land of PWD (B&R) for which necessary permission (R1) has already been obtained. Therefore, there is no need to acquire the land. It is stated that the level of the bed of Abulkhurana Drain is higher than the level of the Dhani Kundan Singh. It is also stated to be incorrect that the dirty water of Dhani will over flow into the land of the petitioner. Besides, it is also stated as incorrect that the level of the land of the petitioner is low and it is surrounded by Abulkhurana Drain. Before constructing the water channel the respondents got demarcation on 4.7.2009 in the presence of the revenue officials and concerned parties. The respondents after visiting the spot and physically verifying the level have

¶21

CWP 10829 of 2009

¶22

¶23

passed estimate from Chief Engineer, Drainage. As per the site plan, the bed level of the water channel is 626.19 ft at the point where the water will fall in the Abulkhurana Drain. As per ‘L’ – Section of Abulkhurana Drain designed bed level is 621.58 ft at RD 182100 where the water channel will fall in the drain. Therefore, there is difference of 4.61 ft between the bed level of water channel and Abulkhurana drain. The bed level of water channel is 4.61 ft higher than the bed level of Abulkhurana Drain. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no question of any over flowing of the water channel.

¶24

In view of the said stand of the respondents that the land of the petitioner would not be affected by the construction of the drain as also that the water of the drain to be constructed would be kept separate from the canal water of the water course in Khasra No.338, nothing survives in the present petition and the same is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

10.8.2009. ASR

¶26

( S.S.SARON ) JUDGE

Jagdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Ajaib Singh Vs State of Punjab

Angrej Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Malkit Singh Vs Sco and Ors.

Amandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Madan Lal Vs F.C. Punjab and Ors.

Pharas Ram Vs Collector, Ambala & Ors.