Court remitted writ petition to respondent to consider evidence on existence of khal before restoration order; court did not express opinion on merits.
Case remitted to Superintending Canal Officer to consider evidence on existence of khal and pass appropriate order.
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.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10252 OF 2010 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: JULY 17, 2012
Iqbal Singh and another
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. S. S. Brar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State.
Mr. Swaran Singh Tiwana, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Respondent No.3 had moved an application before the Canal authorities on the ground that the petitioner had demolished the khal and because of this irrigation to his land was stopped. This application was opposed by the petitioner. The Divisional Canal Officer ordered the restoration of the khal. The appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed and so he is before this Court.
The only grievance raised by counsel for the petitioner is that restoration of khal has been ordered without taking any
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10252 OF 2010 :{ 2 }:
evidence in regard to the existence of the khal . As per the counsel, the restoration could have been ordered only if the khal (water course) was existing one and this aspect ought to have been first ascertained by the authorities concerned before directing restoration.
Considering the limited prayer made, the case is remitted back to the Superintending Canal Officer, who shall consider the necessary material or evidence on record in regard to existence of the khal and thereafter pass appropriate order restoring the same if it is found to be an existing water course. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits in regard to existence of water course and Superintending Canal Officer shall be fully competent to pass any appropriate order in accordance with law and on the basis of evidence. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Superintending Canal Officer on 9.8.2012.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE
July 17, 2012 khurmi
1 issue framed by the court
Whether restoration of khal ordered without evidence of its existence violates principles of natural justice.
Iqbal Singh
Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala
RANJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
