The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order altering water course alignment. The court held that the modification was justified to avoid interfering with private respondents' houses and was not contrary to the final order.
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.
Civil Writ Petition No.3472 of 1996 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.3472 of 1996 Date of Order: 14.02.2013
Bakshish Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL
Present: Mr. I.P.S.Mangat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for respondent no.1.
None for respondent no.2.
Mr. Ish Puneet Singh, Advocate, for respondent no.3.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)
The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated 29.01.1996/09.02.1996, passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the Director Consolidation, vide order dated 18.01.1995, remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer to provide a water course without demolition of the constructed property, the Consolidation Officer provided a water course. The order passed by the
Civil Writ Petition No.3472 of 1996 -2-
Consolidation Officer has been modified by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, by altering the alignment of the water course. It is argued that the water course provided by the Consolidation Officer, through plot Nos.215 and 216 and killa no.18//24/5 and 18//24/4 does not interfere with the houses of private respondents. The mere fact that it passes close to their houses, does not confer jurisdiction upon the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings to modify the order. It is further submitted that order passed by the Director Consolidation of Holdings, on 18.01.1995, is final and as the matter was only remanded to the Consolidation Officer to ensure that no construction is affected, the Additional Director Consolidation had no jurisdiction to reverse the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. It is further argued that khasra no.218 is “Abadi” and it is not possible for the petitioner to irrigate the land through his land, through this khasra number as even otherwise the land is at a higher level.
Counsel for the private respondent submits that as the water course, proposed by the Consolidation Officer, is likely to affect existing construction, the Additional Director Consolidation has rightly modified the alignment of water course and while doing so, has not reviewed order dated 18.01.1995 passed by the Director Consolidation. It is further submitted that the Additional Director Consolidation has merely ordered that the
Civil Writ Petition No.3472 of 1996
-3-
constructed portion shall not be affected and the water course shall be excavated through Plot No.218.
We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and find no reason to issue the writ as prayed.
The petitioner's grievance arises from order passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, altering the proposed alignment of water course and directing that the water course shall be excavated through plot no.218. A perusal of order passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings reveals that plot no.218 belongs to Bakshish Singh, the petitioner. The petitioner is beneficiary of the water course. We, therefore, find no error in the discretion exercised by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings while holding that the water course be excavated through plot no.218. The alignment proposed by the Consolidation Officer, abutted the houses of the respondents and has, therefore, rightly been altered by the Additional Director Consolidation. An argument that the order passed by the Additional Director Consolidation is contrary to the order dated 18.01.1995, issued by the Director Consolidation of Holdings, is misconceived as the Additional Director Consolidation has passed the impugned order only after the Consolidation Officer has passed a fresh order regarding alignment of the water course.
In this view of the matter, the writ petition is
Civil Writ Petition No.3472 of 1996
-4-
dismissed. If, however, there is any inconvenience to the petitioner, viz-a-viz, irrigation to his land, the petitioner may raise his grievance before an appropriate forum, in accordance with
law.
(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE
February 14, 2013 (REKHA MITTAL) nt JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings had jurisdiction to modify the order regarding the water course alignment.
Whether the impugned order violating the order dated 18.01.1995 issued by Director Consolidation of Holdings.
Bakshish Singh
State of Punjab
Rajive Bhalla
Rekha Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
