Dismissed

Harbans Kaur v. Superintending Canal Officer and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jul 2012CWP/11746/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order directing restoration of a demolished water course, upholding the Revenue Officer's finding of fact and advising the petitioner to seek a reasonable deviation privately rather than enforcing the original water line.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; the petitioner was advised to move an application for providing water course from one side of the land if permissible, but the main writ was dismissed.

Harbans Kaur Vs Superintending Canal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11746 OF 2010 :[ 1 ]:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: JULY 17, 2012

Smt.Harbans Kaur

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶10

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Mr. Gurdev Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State.

¶15

Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶16

¶17

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶18

Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed an application before the Divisional Canal Officer for restoration of a water course, which, according to them, was demolished. Sub Divisional Canal Officer sent Ziledar Khai (Mamdot) to inspect the spot. Ziledar, after inspection, gave his report that there was a water course existing at the site. Counsel for the petitioner would term this report to be false and given under the political pressure. However, on receiving this report, the S.D.O (Canals) sent a notice to the parties to appear

¶19

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11746 OF 2010 :[ 2 ]:

¶20

before him. After adjourning the case on number of occasions, he passed an order, directing restoration of the water course on the boundaries of Killa Nos.8/2/2, 9, 10/1 of Murabba No.31. The petitioner was unsuccessful in his appeal and has now filed this writ petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 has heavily relied upon a report given by Ziledar, which indicated that the existing water course had been demolished. He would accordingly justify the order, directing restoration of the demolished water course. Counsel for the petitioner mainly has submitted that report of Ziledar was on account of political pressure. Except for baldly stating so, no averment has been made as to under whose political pressure this was so done. No one is impleaded as party to say that he was the one who exerted political pressure for getting this report. In the absence of the material averments, it is not appropriate to go into this aspect as alleged.

¶22

Counsel for the respondents has also referred to `barbandi' of the year 1979 to show that water course was in existence. As per the counsel, after consolidation some water courses may have been re-aligned but existence can not be disputed. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction in the impugned orders, which are purely based on finding of fact.

¶23

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that he would have no objection for providing of water course ( khal) from one side of his kura as the present water course bifurcates his land. Let

¶24

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11746 OF 2010 :[ 3 ]:

¶25

the petitioner move an appropriate application in this regard before the competent authority, if permissible. If he does so, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶26

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed

¶27

of.

¶28

July 17, 2012 khurmi

¶29

(RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE

Harbans Kaur v. Superintending Canal Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbans Kaur v. Superintending Canal Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Badri Nath Vs F.C. (Appeals-Ii), Punjab and Others

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sarwan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Avtar Chamak Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Iqbal Singh and Anr. Vs Superitending Canal Officer and Ors.