Remanded

Naib Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2012CWP/12845/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a CWP, the petitioner challenged the acceptance of an appeal by the Appellate Authority altering a sanctioned water course. The Court dismissed the petition and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to consider the legality of the change.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed with a direction to the Appellate Authority (Respondent No.1) to reconsider the appeal regarding the change of the water course and direct parties to appear.

Naib Singh Vs Superintending… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 12845 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.07.2012

Naib Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Superintending Canal Officer & ors.

¶7

..Respondents.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶9

Present : Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. B.S.Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶10

¶11

RANJIT SINGH J.(Oral)

¶12

Being aggrieved against the action of respondent No.3 in demolishing the sanctioned water course, the brother of the petitioner gave an application to get this water course restored. A report was called from the field staff. Respondent No.2 states that he had inspected the spot also. On 07.07.2009, respondent No.2 accepted the application filed by the brother of the petitioner and ordered the restoration of the water course. Respondent No.3 than filed an appeal, and it is alleged that, without looking into the relevant facts, the appeal has been allowed. Against this, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶13

The solitary submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the appeal has been accepted by the Superintending Canal Officer (respondent No.1) without realizing whether the petitioner was receiving proper irrigation or not. The plea is that the matter relating to restoration of the water course was to be considered and not whether

¶14

CWP No. 12845 of 2010

¶15

[2]

¶16

the party is receiving better irrigation or proper irrigation from the new water course which has been provided.

¶17

Notice of motion is issued to the respondents. Replies have

¶18

been filed.

¶19

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has placed on record site plan Annexure R-3/1 to show the water course which is alleged to have been demolished and the new water course which has been provided. Earlier the land of the petitioner was being irrigated by the water course as shown by letters 'DEF' in the site plan. Now a shorter watercourse has been provided as 'DG' and watercourse shown by letters 'DEF' in the site plan which is alleged to have been demolished is discontinued.

¶20

The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier he was getting irrigation to his land from point F which was almost in the centre of his area. Now he will get water from one end of his area and so this may prejudice the irrigation of the petitioner. It is otherwise seen that the watercourse DG is a shorter than DEF.

¶21

The reason for providing this watercourse has also been explained by learned counsel for respondent No. 3. He says that the width of Moga has been increased and that there was requirement for providing a bigger water course. These submissions perhaps were neither made before respondent No.1-Appellate Authority. For this, let the matter go back to the respondent-Appellate Authority.

¶22

CWP No. 12845 of 2010

¶23

[3]

¶24

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1-Appellate Authority to consider whether the change of water course is justified in law or otherwise. Both the parties are directed to appear before the respondent-Appellate Authority on 27.08.2012 with liberty to plead on the lines as stated before this Court.

¶25

23.07.2012

¶26

'ravinder'

¶27

(RANJIT SINGH) JUDGE

Naib Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naib 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangeeta Vs State of Haryana

Sanjit Vs State of Haryana

Raju Vs State of Haryana

Gurcharan Singh etc. Vs State of Pb. etc.

Geeta Devi Vs Municipal Corporation Bathinda and Ors.

Udai Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.