Petitioner challenged an order restoring a water course affecting his land. The Court held the order violated natural justice due to lack of notice and hearing. It was set aside and remanded for fresh proceedings.
Impugned order set aside; petition disposed of; parties directed to appear for fresh hearing.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 2548 of 2007
Date of decision : 04.10.2012
Santokh Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Superintending Canal Officer, Amritsar & others ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. G.S. Sirphiki, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Yatinder Sharma DAG, Punjab for the State.
Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner is owner in possession of half share of land comprising Rectangle No. 50 Khasra Nos. 16 and 17 both measuring (8-0) kanal. He is co-onwer with brother Lakhbir Singh. Bhagwan Singh son of Suba Singh is owner in possession of the remaining half share. Respondent No. 3 (Bakshish Singh) owns and possesses land measuring 25 kanals 9 marlas situated in village Pakharpura, Tehsil and District Amritsar. Respondent No. 4 moved application before respondent No. 2 for restoration of water courseCFG as shown in site plan. After providing opportunity to the parties
Civil Writ Petition No. 2548 of 2007
-2-
concerned, respondent No. 2 passed exparte order and did not hear respondent No. 4 properly. Respondent No. 2 passed an order restoring the water course CFG through land of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal against the same, which was accepted by respondent No. 1. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 1 has not applied his mind to the material placed on record and water course as shown in the site plan was restored from the land of the petitioner without serving any notice to him, despite the fact that there is no allegation of demolition made against the petitioner and respondent No. 4.
During the course of hearing, counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 had prayed for resolving the issue amicably and so sought time to summon the parties so that if possible the dispute could be amicably settled. The parties were, accordingly, directed to remain present. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 have come present. However, respondent No. 3 is not present. Counsel for the said respondent submits that he had made an attempt to get in touch with respondent No. 3 but despite communication he has not come present. It was at the request of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that the parties were summoned but now he himself has chosen to remain absent. Except for wasting the time of the court, no purpose is achieved by this request made on behalf of respondent No. 3.
The case has been heard on merits. If respondent No. 1 was intending to provide the water course through the land owned by
Civil Writ Petition No. 2548 of 2007
-3-
the petitioner, it was incumbent upon him to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Otherwise also plea is that there is no allegation of demolition of this water course by the petitioner. The water course earlier was restored through the land of respondent No. 3, on whose appeal it is changed in this manner to prejudice the petitioner. Such an order could only have been passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected petitioner to ensure adherence to principle of natural justice. The impugned order, Annexures P-5 and P-6 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer (SCO), accordingly, cannot be sustained and are set aside. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the SCO on 30.10.2012, who shall now afford opportunity of hearing to all concerned and pass fresh order in accordance with law.
The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
October 04, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an order restoring a water course through petitioner's land without serving notice violates the principle of natural justice.
Whether the Superintending Canal Officer acted correctly in passing an order without hearing the owner of the land affected.
Whether the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution should be set aside and remanded for fresh hearing.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Santokh Singh
Superintending Canal Officer, Amritsar
Bakshish Singh
Respondent No. 4
RANJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
