High Court remitted a writ petition concerning water-course allocation to the Superintending Canal Officer for afresh decision without expressing opinion on merits.
Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to Superintending Canal Officer for afresh decision after hearing the parties.
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.
CWP No.2399 of 2000 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P.No 2399 of 2000 Date of Decision: November 12, 2014.
Mohinder Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Collector and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
Rajan Gupta, J (Oral)
Petitioner is aggrieved by order passed by Superintending Canal Officer (Annexure P/4). Operative part whereof reads as under:-
“Both the parties were heard in detail. The case khaka plan and other relevant record examined carefully. It has been seen that from point A on the main water course there is a branch water course AB and the land holding of the respondent is only two killas away from point A. As per normal rules of the warabandi the Branch watercourse has to run first and therefore branch watercourse AB should be run first than the part of the main watercourse AC. The decision of the Divisional Canal Officer, Sirsa W/S Division, Sirsa is set aside. The appeal, is therefore, accepted. Deputy Collector to amend the warabandi accordingly.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. According to him, S.C.O erred in holding that water-course AB is branch water-course and would run prior to water-course AC. According to him,
CWP No.2399 of 2000 2
the finding is factually incorrect, water-course AB being the main water course and AC being a branch water-course. He thus, prays that impugned order be set-aside and matter be remitted to the same authority for decision afresh.
Prayer for remand is not opposed by learned State counsel.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it fit to remit the case to the same authority for decision afresh. Order Annexure P/4 is thus set-aside. Matter is remitted to S.C.O for decision afresh after hearing the parties.
Writ petition is allowed in these terms.
(Rajan Gupta) Judge
November 12, 2014. BB
Mohinder Singh
Deputy Collector
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
