Dismissed

Manohar Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer, Hisar & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Jan 2011CWP/1643/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging administrative orders directing the petitioner to remove a gargoyle and mori damaging a water course. The judges held that the authorities acted within jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1947, to restore the water course used for irrigation. The petition failed on legal and equitable grounds.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as the petitioner fails to establish any case and the authorities were within jurisdiction to direct removal of obstruction.

Manohar Singh Vs Superintending Canal Officer… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.1643 of 2011 Date of Decision: January 28, 2011

Manohar Singh

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

Superintending Canal Officer, Hisar & others

¶7

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶8

. . .

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶10

PRESENT: - Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

. . .

¶12

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

¶13

Challenge in this petition is to Order dated 19.7.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 i.e. Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Deosar Water Services Sub Division, Hisar; Order dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar Water Services Division, Hisar; and Order dated 15.12.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.1 i.e. Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services Circle No.1,

¶14

CWP No.1643 of 2011 [2]

¶15

Hisar.

¶16

It appears that an application was submitted by a number of persons to the Ziledar for report and verification to the effect that the petitioner has a house close to the water course. Rain water drainage of the house is damaging the water course and also polluting the water being carried in the water course for various purposes.

¶17

An enquiry was conducted whereupon

¶18

respondent No.3 i.e. Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Deosar Water Services Sub Division, Hisar, found that respondent (petitioner herein) had installed a gargoyle (Patnala) on the roof of his house, water of which falls in the water course that causes damage, time and again to the water course. So as to maintain the water course and avoid damage to the water course, orders have been passed directing the petitioner to remove the gargoyle (Patnala).

¶19

It needs to be noticed that in order, Annexure P-1, following has also been recorded:-

¶20

“On 29.6.2010 the respondent by coming present made statement that he is unable to remove the gargoyle in such a short period because for the damage of water the roof of the house has to be broken. The spot inspection in this case was conducted on 3.7.2010.”

¶21

Consideration of the above

¶22

¶23

CWP No.1643 of 2011 [3]

¶24

extracted portion indicates that the petitioner accepted that water course was being damaged and therefore undertook to remove the gargoyle, however, sought time for the said purpose.

¶25

The petitioner, however, carried an appeal to the Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar Water Services, Division Hisar. Relevant portion from order (Annexure P-3) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer reads as under:-

¶26

“Decision: From the perusal of revenue record, Civil Court decision other related record, Khaka plan and pleading and argument of the parties have been persuade and considering in detail. The appellant encroached upon the berm of the lined water course, while constructed his house on plot in murba No.66/3 and also unauthorizedly left mori and fixed an Gargoyle on the roof of house which discharge polluted water and water falls on the bank of the lined water course and cause damage the water course outlet RD 21300/R Harita Minor which used for irrigation and cattle drinking. By this cause appellant is putting obstruction in smooth use of Canal Water. So it is clearly case comes under section 24 of the Canal Act. I directed appellant to remove the mori and Gargoyle immediately. Hence decision of SDCO Deosar, Water Services Sub Division is upheld and appeal is dismissed.”

¶27

Petitioner further carried

¶28

proceedings to the Superintendent Canal Officer who has held that he had no jurisdiction to hear the matter in view of the fact that it arises out of a case under Section 24 of the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, 1947.

¶29

On facts, I find that other than

¶30

admission of the petitioner, as disclosed from extracted portion above, from the site plan, it has emerged that the petitioner has encroached

¶31

CWP No.1643 of 2011 [4]

¶32

upon the berm of the lined water course while constructing his house on a plot in Murba No.66/3. The petitioner has also unauthorizedly left a mori and fixed a gargoyle on the roof of house from which water is discharged on the bank of the lined water course. The said offending act of the petitioner caused damage to the water course outlet RD 21300/R Harita Minor which is used for irrigation and cattle drinking purposes.

¶33

In such circumstances, I find that the authorities have acted within their legal jurisdiction in directing removal of obstruction in smooth use of canal water.

¶34

Learned counsel has tried to

¶35

develop an argument that under Section 24 of the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, removal of gargoyle could not have been ordered.

¶36

On a reference to Section 24 of the Act ibid, it transpires that if a person causes any damage to a water course or obstructs a water course, he can be proceeded against and he can be directed to restore the water course at his own cost. In view of such legal position, the argument addressed by the learned counsel does not hold good.

¶37

In equity also, the petitioner has no case, in so much as, for his personal convenience, the water from the roof is being

¶38

CWP No.1643 of 2011 [5]

¶39

drained in the pacca water course, causing damage to the water course that is used for common purposes. Thus in law or in facts, the petitioner cannot succeed.

¶40

The petition is accordingly

¶41

dismissed.

¶42

(AJAI LAMBA)

¶43

January 28, 2011 JUDGE avin

¶44

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶45

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Manohar Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer, Hisar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer, Hisar & 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

Maninder Pal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Lakhvir Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Karan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors. (Disposed of)

Suraj B Han & Anor. Vs Commissioner, Rohtak Divn, Rohtak & Ors.