Dismissed

Amrik Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Nov 2011CWP/20182/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition invoking Article 226, the petitioner challenged orders directing restoration of a water channel. The court found the authorities followed due procedure and recorded cogent grounds, dismissing the petition as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned orders directing restoration of the water channel were maintained.

Amrik Singh Vs Superintending Canal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

C.W.P.No.20182 of 2011 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P.No.20182 of 2011 Date of Decision: 2.11.2011

¶4

Amrik Singh ...Petitioner Versus

¶5

The Superintending Canal Officer & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶7

Present:Mr.Surinder Singh Siao, Advocate for the petitioner. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J . (Oral)

¶8

The compendium of the facts, which require to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of written application of Raghbir Singh son of Hazara Singh (respondent No.3), the Divisional Canal Officer (for brevity “the DCO”), Majitha (respondent No.2) directed the restoration of water channel in question, depicted as mark B-C in the site plan, in exercise of his powers under section 30 FF (2) of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”), by virtue of impugned order dated 9.2.2011 (Annexure P1).

¶9

Aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure P1), the petitioner filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Superintending Canal Officer (for short “the SCO”) (respondent No.1), by way of impugned order dated 19.7.2011 (Annexure P2).

¶10

The petitioner still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders (Annexures P1 and P2) and preferred the instant writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire

¶12

C.W.P.No.20182 of 2011 -2-

¶13

matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition.

¶14

Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the DCO and SCO have illegally ordered the restoration of the water channel in question without following the due procedure, so, the impugned orders are illegal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

¶15

As is evident from the record, that the DCO has followed the due procedure of inspection of site, duly considered the reports of the field officers and after taking into consideration the material on record, in the right perspective correctly, ordered the restoration of the water channel, denominated by letters B-C in the site plan, by means of impugned order (Annexure P1), the operative part of which is as under:-

¶16

“Perusal of Khasra girdawari, enclosed with in the case file, reveals that there existed canal irrigation to land bearing Killa No.13/15 belonging to Sh.Raghubir Singh son of Hazara Singh and as a matter of evidence of canal irrigation of the said land, photocopies of receipts of Canal WaterTax was enclosed in the case file. But canal irrigation of kurras bearing Killa No.10-11-20 Rectangle No.11 belonging to Sh.Amrik Singh s/o Sh.Partap Singh is not proved. Had there been any canal water channel to his land, it must have been canal irrigated and entry of so canal irrigated land would have made in the Khasra Girdawari. Sh.Hakumat Rai, Ex. Sarpanch and others have appeared in the Court on 13.10.2010 and made statements, vide which, they have verified the fact of canal irrigation to the land belonging to Sh.Raghubir Singh, applicant. In the warabandi (schedule) passed on 20.1.66 under section 68 by Deputy Collector, Majitha Division, there is regular turn of land belonging to the applicant.

¶17

Keeping in view the facts mentioned above, the water channel marked 'E-C', shown in the site plan, is proved to be in operation, which is necessary to be restored in the interest of irrigation. The canal irrigation to the land belonging to Sh.Amrik Singh son of Partap Singh is not proved. Hence, it is hereby ordered under Section 30 F.F. (2) of Northern India Canal & Drainage Act 8 of 1873 to restore the water channel, depicted as mark 'B-C' in the site plan, situated on southern ground line of land bearing Rectangle No.13, Killa No.14, in its previous condition.”

¶18

Not only that, the order of DCO was duly upheld by the SCO

¶19

C.W.P.No.20182 of 2011 -3-

¶20

(appellate authority) and considered all the relevant factors in this respect.

¶21

At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant context.

¶22

Meaning thereby, the (canal) authorities have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P1 & P2) deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶23

No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such.

¶25

( Mehinder Singh Sullar ) 2.11.2011 Judge AS

Amrik Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrik Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer 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

Distt.Food & Supplies Collector Vs Bhola Singh & Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Vijender Singh and Ors.

The Director, Food and Supplies Pb Chd Vs Parkash Singh etc.

The Director Food Supplies Pb Chd. etc. Vs Gurdev Singh and Anr.

Wazir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mohammad Sardar Dara Vs State of Punjab and Anr.