Remanded

Sajjan Kumar & Ors. v. Divisional Canal Officer & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Dec 2014CWP/23336/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order allowing the transfer of 10.50 acres of land to a new water outlet. TheHigh Court found the order sketchy and unreasoned, setting it aside and remitting it to the Chief Canal Officer for a fresh decision within four months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Chief Canal Officer for a fresh decision within four months.

Sajjan Kumar & Ors. Vs Divisional Canal Officer… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 23336 of 2010

¶3

Date of Decision: 1.12.2014

¶4

Sajjan Kumar and Others

¶5

... Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar and Others

¶8

... Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta.

¶10

Present: Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶11

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶12

Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶13

Rajan Gupta, J.

¶14

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

¶15

On perusal of khaka map and other record, it emerges that 10.50 acres of area of appellant is well connected to lined watercourse at RD 46100-R Balsamand Sub-Branch and can be well irrigated from this watercourse in comparison to lined watercourse at RD 43970-R of same canal which is far away from his fields. The plea advanced by respondents that they will receive less water on this transfer of area, is not acceptable as water in both outlets is available in adequate quantity as these outlet are located on main branch which run non stop. More so, on addition of 10.50 acres of

¶16

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2014.12.01 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No. 23336 of 2010

¶18

¶19

area, corresponding quantum of water will be readjusted. Hence, keeping in view that every shareholder has right for improvement, the appeal is allowed and 10.50 acres area is allowed to be transferred to outlet 46100-R Balsamand Sub Branch

¶20

Order has been assailed on the ground that same is nonspeaking and cryptic. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Chief Canal Officer has merely held that addition of 10.50 acres of area at the outlet RD 46100-R, Balsamand Sub Branch would make no difference as quantum of water would be re-adjusted. Neither any figures have been given nor any details are contained in the order. According to him, well reasoned order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer has been upset without assigning any cogent reason. He, thus, prays that matter be remitted to the same authority for decision afresh.

¶21

I find substance in the plea of the petitioner that order passed by the Chief Canal Officer is rather sketchy. It does not reflect that all aspects have been taken into consideration. Under the circumstances, same is hereby set aside. Matter is remitted to the same authority for decision afresh after hearing the parties. Petition is allowed in these terms. Chief Canal Officer shall endeavour to decide the issue expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months.

¶22

(Rajan Gupta) Judge

¶23

December 1, 2014 “DK”

¶24

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2014.12.01 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Sajjan Kumar & Ors. v. Divisional Canal Officer & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajjan Kumar & Ors. v. Divisional 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

Surjan Singh Chatha Vs Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab & Ors.

Ved Pal Vs Financial Commissioner Haryana and Ors.

Kulwant Kaur and Ors. Vs District Collector and Ors.

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. Vs Ash Mohammad

Harpreetinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sher Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.