The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a writ petition challenging orders restoring a demolished watercourse. The Court held that the Canal Authorities acted correctly in restoring the watercourse for irrigation purposes after following due process.
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.
CWP No19737 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 19737 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 10, 2012
Dalip Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Divisional Canal Officer and others.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH.
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. P.S. Jammu,Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 to 14. None for respondent No.15.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 13.10.2009 (Annexure P/5) passed by respondent No.2 – Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Ellenabad and order dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No.1 – Divisional Canal Officer, Sirsa, vide which watercourse AB has been restored.
Brief facts of the case are that an application was filed by Vinod Kumar (Respondent No.3) etc. for restoration of watercourse in
CWP No19737 of 2009 2
Chak of Outlet No. RD 24590-R, NLC of Village Neemla. The Canal Patwari prepared the Naksa and other related documents. Statements of the parties i.e. applicants, as well as, the other persons were recorded. On enquiry, it was found that the main watercourse is lying at both the sides. Only one killa length in dispute is not in existence. The authorities recommended the case to the Sub Divisional Canal Officer. The Sub Divisional Canal Officer after recording statements came to the conclusion that watercourse AB shown in the site plan was in existence at the spot. It has been demolished by the petitioner. The same is ordered to be restored to its earlier position in the interest of irrigation. As due to the demolition of watercourse AB obstruction has been created in the irrigation of the fields which has resulted into loss of crops. The said finding was affirmed by the Divisional Canal Officer vide order dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure P/6). Hence this writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the watercourse has been restored permanently. The Canal Authorities cannot restore the watercourse permanently. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is an admitted fact on record that the watercourse arises from Outlet No. 24590R. This watercourse is in existence on both sides except one killa in length i.e. the disputed part AB is demolished. This finding of fact had been concurrently recorded by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, as well as, the Divisional Canal Officer after getting the report from field staff. This fact
CWP No19737 of 2009 3
is also not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that watercourse on either side of the demolished portion of watercourse AB is a Pucca water course and is in existence, so, it is clear that AB part of the watercourse has been dismantled by the petitioner and its restoration is upheld. It is in the interest of irrigation of land of other co-sharers which have been affected due to demolition.
I do not find any ground to interfere in the orders passed by the Canal authorities, which are in accordance with law and had been passed after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested persons.
No merit.
Dismissed.
January 10, 2012 ( Paramjeet Singh ) vkd Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the orders passed by Canal authorities restoring a demolished watercourse after adequate hearing.
Whether the restoration of watercourse AB in the interest of irrigation warrants interference with authorities' findings of fact.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dalip Singh
Divisional Canal Officer and others
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
