The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a transfer of income-bearing land for irrigation allocation. It upheld the validity of the administrative order based on published notices and Lambardar's endorsement, holding disputed facts regarding notice issuance not justiciable on a writ.
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.8119 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.01.2012
Tek Ram and another
....Petitioners
versus
The State of Haryana, through its Secretary, Irrigation Department, Civil Secretariat, Haryana, Chandigarh, and others.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. O.P. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
----
K.Kannan, J.
Civil Writ Petition No.8119 of 1987 (O&M) - 2 -
instance of private respondents for transfer of 12/12 acres of area from outlet RD58484/R to outlet RD 53947/R, it appears that SDO, Bhutana Sub Division submitted a draft scheme duly recommending such a transfer. The case had been taken up by the Canal Officer, Rohtak, who purported to carry out an enquiry and had observed that he had examined two persons, Ranbir and Chanda being the shareholders of outlet RD-58484/R, who were alleged to have given no objection for such a transfer. The Canal Officer, however, held that he was not competent to approve such a change and rejected the plea by his order dated 13.03.1987. The respondents had again preferred an appeal to the Superintending Canal Officer, Western Jamuna Canal, West Circle, Rohtak, but he also held that he was not competent to pass orders and rejected the appeal. In a further appeal filed to the Chief Canal Officer (YC), the appeal was allowed on the ground that there was no objection from anybody and hence, he was making the order of approval.
Civil Writ Petition No.8119 of 1987 (O&M) - 3 -
the sketch plan, the name of village, the name of distributory etc. The Lambardar concerned shall be informed about the scheme and he should announce the place where the details of the scheme could be inspected by beat of drum. When the petitioners were complaining that the scheme had been purported to be modified without any form of notice to persons effected by the scheme, one would expect that the Government to join issues and produce all the relevant materials to show that the official acts had been duly complied with. I find that the State has not even filed the reply. Only respondents 5 to 8, who have taken the benefit that modified scheme have filed reply and have produced before the Court a copy of the notice alleged to have been issued under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1974. The District Canal Officer has noted on 16.02.1987 that the same was being published with a view to elicit objections and that all detailed discussions of the scheme and hearing would be held on 13.03.1987. The document of notice produced by the respondents along with the reply also showed that the publication and munadi had been directed to be made in the village through Chowkidar. The Lambardar has made an endorsement on 20.02.1987 on the notice that publication had been effected on 20.02.1987 and that all persons present had been informed by the patwari in his presence and that the rightholders had been informed through the Chowkidar. The patwari had sent back notices after serving the notices in the manner required under Rule 9.
Civil Writ Petition No.8119 of 1987 (O&M) - 4 -
Civil Writ Petition No.8119 of 1987 (O&M)
contained in the writ petition ought to fail. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
17.01.2012 sanjeev
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a change in watercourse allocation requiring irrigation transfer was validly carried out despite petitioners' complaints of inadequate notice and statutory non-compliance.
Whether the Court can adjudicate a disputed question of fact regarding the issuance of statutory notices while the status quo remains under contentious implementation.
Whether the law requires personal service of notices or suffices with publication by beat of drum and Lambardar's endorsement.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tek Ram
The State of Haryana
Private Respondents 5 to 8
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
