This Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. The court held that it is a question of fact regarding the location of the appellant's outlet and not a question of law. The appeal was thus not accepted.
The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
L.P.A. No.566 of 2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No.566 of 2011 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 01, 2011
Gian Parkash
.....APPELLANT
Versus
The Deputy Collector and others
....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
Present: Mr. L.N. Verma, Advocate, for the appellant.
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.16188 of 2007) filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 19.09.2007 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer (respondent No.3 herein), has been dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned order as well as the orders of the canal authorities.
The dispute in this case relates to the rights to receive residual canal water. The Superintending Canal Officer, while taking into consideration the rules and regulations of the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, 1974 and the Rules made thereunder, had allotted the residual water to respondent No.4, whose outlet was on last in the main water course and the
L.P.A. No.566 of 2011 (O&M) -2-
said benefit was not given to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant is challenging the finding recorded by the Superintending Canal Officer. According to him, the outlet of the appellant is situated on the main land and not on the branch water course. This question is a question of fact which cannot be gone into in this appeal. The decision of the Superintending Canal Officer has been upheld by the learned Single Judge while coming to the conclusion that there is no jurisdictional error in the order. The learned Single Judge has affirmed the finding recorded by the Superintending Canal Officer, which was based upon the pleadings of the parties. No question of law is involved in this appeal. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
April 01, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the allocation of residual canal water requires determination of any question of law.
Whether the finding of fact regarding the location of the appellant's outlet recorded by the Superintending Canal Officer can be gone into in this appeal.
Gian Parkash
The Deputy Collector and others
Satish Kumar Mittal
M. Jeyapaul
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
