Partly allowed

Jagga Singh and Others v. Superintending Canal Oficer and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Aug 2009CWP/18555/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging orders changing irrigation outlet. Court held that opposite party was not adequately heard before order was passed. Matter remitted for fresh decision with proper notice.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 31.1.2006 set aside. Matter remitted to Divisional Canal Officer for fresh decision with adequate notice. Hearing fixed for 5.10.2009.

Jagga Singh and Others Vs Superintending… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

.....

¶3

Date of decision:24.8.2009

¶4

Jagga Singh and others

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

¶7

Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala and others

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Present: Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. H.S. Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶11

Mr. Kamaljit Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶12

S.S. Saron, J.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 27.9.2007/4.10.2007 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala Circle IB, Patiala (respondent No.1) and the order dated 31.1.2006 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa Division IB, Jawaharke.

¶15

Harmander Singh (respondent No.3) was irrigating his land measuring 63 Kanals 6 Marlas from outlet No.16470/R Rama Branch. He submitted an application for providing him irrigation from outlet No.20090/L Bangi minor. It was submitted that his land was away from the

¶16

C.W.P. No.18555 of 2007

¶17

[2]

¶18

outlet No.16470/R Branch and the water course from outlet No.16470/R Rama Branch was also at a lower level and his land was on a higher level. Therefore, it was prayed that he be provided water for irrigating his land from outlet No.20090/L Bangi minor.

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner is that the Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa Division IB, Jawaharke while passing the order dated 31.1.2006 had not issued adequate notice of hearing for the said date. It is submitted that the case was earlier fixed on 8.11.2005 and on the said date the hearing of the case was adjourned. Thereafter, notices were issued for 31.1.2006 on which date no notice was issued to the petitioners. It is submitted that even other share-holders who were issued the notices (Annexure-R.1) and who are also stated to have signed the same were not present at the time of hearing. It is in the said situation that the Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa Division IB, Jawaharke (respondent No.2) observed that on 31.1.2006 no person or share-holder had opposed the demand of Harmander Singh (respondent No.3). Therefore, in the interest of more irrigation the outlet for irrigating the land of Harmander Singh (respondent No.3) measuring 63 Kanals 6 Marlas was changed from outlet No.16470/R to outlet No.20090/L Bangi minor.

¶20

At the time of issuing notice the records relating to the case were requisitioned. Thereafter, after examining the record, notice of motion was issued for 18.2.2008.

¶21

The primary grievance of the petitioners as already noticed is that they were not heard by the Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa Division IB, Jawaharke and in fact outlet No.20090/L from which Harmander Singh (respondent No.3) seeks for providing him irrigation is 550 feet away from

¶22

C.W.P. No.18555 of 2007

¶23

[3]

¶24

point-`A' of the site plan (Annexure-P.3) whereas outlet No.16470/R is right nearby.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Harmander Singh has stated that the petitioners deliberately did not put in appearance on 31.1.2006 so that they can get an ex parte order and delay the matter.

¶26

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa Division IB, Jawaharke passed the order dated 31.1.2006 primarily on the ground that no person or share-holder had opposed the demand of Harmander Singh (respondent No.3) nor any written objection had been received in Court. It is in the said circumstances that the demand of Harmander Singh (respondent No.3) was accepted. However, the grievances that the petitioners may be having were not considered nor were they provided an effective and complete opportunity of hearing, which in the facts and circumstances has resulted in prejudice to them. In case the matter is heard afresh no prejudice would be caused to Harmander Singh (respondent No.3). Therefore, it would be just and expedient that the matter is remitted back to the Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa Division IB, Jawaharke to re-decide the matter afresh.

¶27

Accordingly, the civil writ petition is allowed and the order dated 31.1.2006 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa Division IB, Jawaharke is set aside. The Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa Division IB, Jawaharke shall re-decide the matter afresh by taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioners. Accordingly, the parties shall appear before the Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa Division IB, Jawaharke on 5.10.2009 for which date proper and adequate notice shall

¶28

C.W.P. No.18555 of 2007

¶29

[4]

¶30

also be served to the other share-holders who may be interested.

¶31

August 24, 2009.

¶32

(S.S. Saron) Judge

¶33

hsp

¶34

NOTE : Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No

Jagga Singh and Others v. Superintending Canal Oficer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagga Singh and Others v. Superintending Canal Oficer and Others

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

Mewa Singh & Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat & Anr.

Balkar Singh Vs Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Pb Chd

Mewa Singh & Anr. Vs State of Pb. & Ors.

Ram Jawari Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Financial Commissioner Punjab and Ors.

Ram Gopal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.