Dismissed

Jagdev Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2010LPA/959/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Letters Patent Appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition challenging a mutation in the name of the Canal Department under Section 30 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; writ petition remains rejected; inquiry into legal error in Single Judge's order failed.

Jagdev Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.959 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.8.2010

Jagdev Singh

…..Appellant

versus

State of Haryana and others

¶7

……Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih

¶9

Present: Mr.B.K.Bagri, Advocate for the appellant

¶10

Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)

¶11

Appellant/petitioner filed CWP No.4921 of 2006 to impugne order dated 2.11.2001, passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Rai, asking the Tehsildar Kharkhoda to enter mutation in the name of Canal Department regarding Khasra No.25//16/1 and 17/1. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.3.2010. Hence, this appeal.

¶12

Claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Single Judge by observing as under:-

¶13

“The order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Delhi Division on 1.6.1962, the order passed by the Superintending Engineer, Water Yamuna Canal, East Circle, Delhi on 11.6.1962, the Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat on 24.12.1994 and the Additional District Judge, Sonepat on 2.6.1995 leave no manner of doubt that the water course was excavated pursuant to a scheme prepared under Section 30 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, duly sanctioned

¶14

¶15

Letters Patent Appeal No.959 of 2010

¶16

by the Divisional Canal Officer and approved by the Superintending Engineer. The petitioner’s argument that his land is being appropriate without resort to the procedure prescribed by law, therefore, merits summary rejection. The petitioner is guilty of concealment of these orders, the deposit of Rs.188.31 paise in the treasury in the name of his grand father, the subsequent demolition of the water course and is restoration, the dismissal of the civil suit, the order passed by the first appellate court, and the subsequent restoration of the water course by canal authorities. The petitioner has sought to take advantage of an inadvertent error on the part of canal authorities in not getting a mutation sanctioned in their name. The writ petition is a brazen attempt to mislead this Court and exploit an inadvertent error on the part of canal authorities in not getting a mutation sanctioned in their favour.

¶17

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Costs shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Haryana Legal Services Authority, within one month.”

¶18

Counsel for the appellant has failed to show any legal error in the order passed, rather, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is a person, who is misusing the process of law. Many orders were passed against him, the Court below even has given a finding that he had dismantled the legally sanctioned water course. It has also come on record that compensation was deposited, for the land used for the water course in the Treasury, which was withdrawn by predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. The petitioner is

¶19

¶20

Letters Patent Appeal No.959 of 2010

¶21

trying to take benefit of some inadvertent error committed by the revenue

¶22

authorities. No case is made out for interference.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

(Jasbir Singh) Judge

¶25

12.08.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge

Jagdev Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdev Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parkash Kaur Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Minesh Devendra Shah@Manish Shah Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurmit Singh & Ors. Vs Chandigarh Administration & Anr.

Surat Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sarwan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kurukshetra Uni, Kurukshetra, Thr'H Its Regis. Vs Subhash Chander and Ors.