Dismissed

Resham Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 May 2016CWP/23976/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Articles 226/227, the petitioner challenged orders dismissing a revision petition regarding a watercourse on their land. The Court examined the warabandi and site plan, concluding that the physical operation of naka giving and taking proved the existence of the watercourse, which had already been restored. Finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders, the

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the order of the Superintending Canal Officer.

Resham Singh Vs Superintending Canal Officer & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No.23976 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.23976 of 2014 Date of decision: 18.05.2016

Resham Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur and others ....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL

¶10

1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶11

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶12

Present: - Mr. S.P.S. Tinna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.M. Vinayak, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4.

¶13

PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.08.2014 (Annexure P- 6) passed by respondent No.1 – Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur as well as the order dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure P- 1) passed by respondent No.2 – Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division, Abohar, District Ferozepur.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that it is the third round of litigation regarding restoration of allegedly demolished watercourse. Earlier respondents No.3 and 4 filed CWP No.8079 of 2011 before this Court and the case was remanded back to the SCO by passing following order on 20.03.2012: -

¶16

“In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the SCO is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the SCO with a

¶17

RAVINDER SINGH 2016.05.24 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶18

-2-

¶19

CWP No.23976 of 2014

¶20

direction to pass a speaking order specifically dealing with the contention on the basis of which DCO has accepted the application of the petitioners and will also specifically refer to the warabandi of the relevant period with reference as to which point Resham Singh (respondent No.3) was taking nakka and at what point he was giving nakka. The SCO will also make reference to the warabandi to see as to whom respondent No.3 was giving water and at what point, and thereafter, the nakka giving and nakka taking in the case of other cosharers vis-a-vis the petitioners is also to be referred. The above said exercise will be completed within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”

¶21

Thereafter, petitioner filed CWP No.4261 of 2013 challenging the

¶22

order dated 18.03.2010 passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division, Abohar and order dated 22.05.2012 passed by Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur. Following order was passed in CWP No.4261 of 2013 by this Court on 18.07.2014 and case was again remanded to the Superintending Canal Officer for passing fresh order:

¶23

“In these circumstances, impugned order is set aside and the case is again remanded to the SCO. Since the order has been passed violating the order of this Court, SCO is burdened with costs of Rs.25,000/-, which shall be recovered from the SCO personally. Fresh order shall be passed after hearing the parties within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the SCO on 31.7.2014. SCO shall pass speaking order mentioning intersection and khasra number regarding nakka giving and nakka taking of all the abovementioned three share holders.”

¶24

After remand, respondent No.1 – Superintending Canal Officer passed the order dated 21.08.2014 (Annexure P-6) whereby revision petition

¶25

RAVINDER SINGH 2016.05.24 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

-3-

¶27

CWP No.23976 of 2014

¶28

of the petitioner has been dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶30

Mr. Parminder Singh, Ziledar, is present in Court along with original record and states that warabandi dated 17.04.2013 is in force and is continuing as such in which only additions of khatas have been made.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by making reference to site plan (Annexure P-7) vehemently contended that, in fact, respondents No.3 and 4 are getting water from point 'Q' shown with purple colour and from point 'Q' water goes upto khata No.53, shown in yellow colour. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, therefore, question of existence of watercourse shown as ABDC in any circumstances, does not arise.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 vehemently contended that in the warabandi, naka taking has been shown at rectangle No.60//18-24 and naka giving has been shown at rectangle No.60//13-17 as such the petitioner was getting water from the main watercourse which is going from South to North in a straight line and at point 'A' branch watercourse was leading upto the land of the private respondents which is shown in yellow colour in the site plan.

¶33

I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties.

¶34

Perusal of warabandi as well as site plan (Annexure P-7) reveals that respondents No.3 and 4 are taking naka at rectangle 60//18-24 and giving naka at rectangle No.60//13-17. It means that watercourse was

¶35

RAVINDER SINGH 2016.05.24 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶36

-4-

¶37

CWP No.23976 of 2014

¶38

emerging from point 'A' towards the land of private respondents consisting of rectangle No.60//20/2, 21/1 & 22/1, shown in yellow colour. Since the water is being taken from nakka fixed at 60//18-24 and given at 60//13-17, it clearly indicates that land was being irrigated by the watercourse starting from point 'A' to 'C' i.e. ADBC. Therefore, existence of watercourse ADBC cannot be disputed. In these circumstance, existence of watercourse alleged to be demolished is proved, which has been subsequently restored by the DCO as well as the SCO. Moreover, from the original record also the existence of watercourse stands proved.

¶39

In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.

¶40

Dismissed.

¶41

(Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal) Judge

¶42

May 18, 2016 R.S.

¶43

RAVINDER SINGH 2016.05.24 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Resham Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Resham Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurnam Singh Vs Paramjit Kaur

Rattan Singh Vs Financial Commissioner & Anr.

Piara Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ajit Singh & Anr. Vs Sco Sirsa & Ors.

Jyoti Rani & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.