Dismissed

Mukhtiar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Oct 2012CWP/15791/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order permitting a new Nakka without notice, the High Court dismissed the petition primarily because the petitioners failed to pay court-imposed costs and comply with a previous order to file a field plan, leading to the petition's abatement with respect to one petitioner and dismissal for the other. Notice under Section 68(3) was alleged to be non-existent. The c

What did the court decide?

The petition stood abated qu pro petitioner No.1 due to non-payment of costs; the petition qu pro petitioner No.2 was dismissed as having no merit.

Mukhtiar Singh and Ors. Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15791 OF 2009 :{ 1 }:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 18, 2012

¶4

Mukhtiar Singh and another

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Punjab 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: Ms. Sunita Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Gursewak Singh Mann, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶14

Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State.

¶15

Mr. R. K. Girdhar, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶16

¶17

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶18

Respondent No.5 filed an application before respondent No.4 for sanction of a new Nakka . This prayer was made despite the fact that family of respondent No.5 had already six Nakkas in about eight acres of land at the same watercourse. It is alleged that respondent No.4 passed the impugned order, Annexure P-1, without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and other co-sharers of the watercourse. It is further urged that the impugned order is non-reasoned, non-speaking and against the provisions of

¶19

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15791 OF 2009 :{ 2 }:

¶20

natural justice.

¶21

The petitioners filed an appeal against this order before the Divisional Canal Officer, who dismissed the same on 1.4.2009. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a revision before the Superintending Canal Officer. The revision was also dismissed on 1.9.2009. The petitioners have accordingly filed this writ petition.

¶22

The main argument advanced by counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Collector, Canal Division Bathinda, District Bathinda (respondent No.4) without issuing any notice to the petitioners and other cosharers. Counsel for the respondents, however, has invited my attention to the contents of the reply filed by State as contained in Para 4, where it is averred as under:-

¶23

“......It is necessary to add that a notice u/s 68(3) of the Canal Act, dated 1.10.2008 was issued to the concerned shareholders of the outlet RD No.4583/R Romana minor, for 22.10.2008 and the service was effected through the Canal patwari on 6.10.08. When no objection was received and as per report of field staff, the demand of the respondent No.5 was accepted by the Deputy Collector Bathinda Canal Division Bathinda-respondent No.4.”

¶24

It is, thus, pleaded that the notice was served on all the concerned share holders and service was effected through Canal Patwari on 6.10.2008. Thereafter, no objection was received and demand was accepted. The issue has further been considered by the

¶25

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15791 OF 2009 :{ 3 }:

¶26

appellate as well as revisional authorities. This factual issue, at this stage, was required to be determined and decided by the appellate or revisional authority where the petitioners had remained unsuccessful. Even otherwise, I do not find that the petitioners have conducted themselves well. This writ petition is pending since 2009. They have an interim order in their favour. On 23.5.2012, counsel for the petitioners was required to place on record the field plan evidencing the respective allocation and how prejudice will be caused to the petitioners by the watercourse suggested and approved by the respective authorities. This order was not complied with. Still, the case was adjourned on 23.7.2012 for today by imposing costs of `1,000/- to be deposited in the accounts of Legal Services Authority, Punjab. Neither the costs have been deposited nor the requirement has been complied with. Today the counsel prays for some more time to comply with the order and to move an application for impleading the legal representatives of petitioner No.1, who is no more.

¶27

Since the petitioners have not cared to pay the costs even, they have lost their right to further hearing. This ground in itself would be enough to dismiss the petition.

¶28

Accordingly, this petition shall stand abated qua petitioner No.1. The petition qua petitioner No.2 is dismissed as I find no merit in the same.

¶29

(RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE

¶30

October 18, 2012 khurmi

Mukhtiar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhtiar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab 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

Hoshiar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jaspreet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Srishti Bajaj and Anr. Vs U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.

Baljit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Modern Hind Sr. Sec. School Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Babe Ke College of Education Vs Panjab University, Chandigarh