Allowed

Jagdev Singh v. Chief Canal Officer & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Nov 2014CWP/10290/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the writ petition, finding the impugned order by the Chief Canal Officer to be cryptic and remitted the matter to the same authority for a fresh decision after hearing parties.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 28.11.2013 set aside; matter remitted to Chief Canal Officer, Panchkula for fresh decision after hearing parties.

Jagdev Singh Vs Chief Canal Officer & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No. 10290 of 2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 10290 of 2014

¶5

Date of decision : 25.11.2014

Jagdev Singh

....Petitioner

V/s

Chief Canal Officer & ors.

¶10

....Respondents

¶11

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶12

Present: Mr. Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG Haryana.

¶14

RAJAN GUPTA J.

¶15

Petitioner is aggrieved by order passed by Chief Canal Officer, Panchkula, operative part whereof reads as under:-

¶16

“Arguments of the appellant as well as counsel for the respondents made before me were considered, Khaka plan, the decision of SCO/BWS circle, Sirsa dated 05.08.2013 and all the relevant data of the case placed before the court were examined and it is observed that the appellant has very good access to his two No. fields through paths left in consolidation in both the villages so I find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The decision dated 05.08.2013 passed by the SCO/BWS Circle, Sirsa is up-held.”

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. According to him, same is non-speaking and cryptic. He prays that matter be remitted to same authority for decision afresh.

¶18

Learned State counsel does not oppose this prayer. He submits that instructions dated 24.02.2009 issued vide letter no.

¶19

310-40/EIC/Works/2009 by Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation AJAY KUMAR 2014.11.25 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶20

CWP No. 10290 of 2014

¶21

¶22

Department, Haryana also requires consideration by Canal authority.

¶23

In view of above, order, Annexure P8 dated 28.11.2013 passed by Chief Canal Officer, Panchkula is hereby set-aside. Matter is remitted to same authority for decision afresh after hearing the parties.

¶24

Petition is allowed in these terms.

¶25

November 25, 2014 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE

¶26

AJAY KUMAR 2014.11.25 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Jagdev Singh v. Chief Canal Officer & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdev Singh v. Chief Canal Officer & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Paramjit Singh Vs Fc Punjab & Ors.

Jarnail Singh Vs Financial Commissioner Appeals Pb Chd & Ors.

Sukhwinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Rajinder Pal & Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner Cum Secretary Govt of Punjab Rural Dev & Panchat Punjab & Ors.

Chet Singh Vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab and Others