Remanded

Beant Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 May 2017CWP/10550/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the SCO's order setting aside a DCO order due to alleged non-compliance with mandatory publication provisions. The court upheld the finding of non-compliance but remitted the matter to the DCO for further proceedings after providing a hearing to all parties.

What did the court decide?

The matter is remitted to the Deputy Canal Officer (DCO) to comply with Section 30B provisions, pass an order thereafter, and afford an opportunity to all parties.

Beant Singh Vs Superintending Canal Officer… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CWP No.10550 of 2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.10550 of 2017 Date of Decision.25.05.2017

Beant Singh

........Petitioner

Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala Circle, Irrigant Branch, Patiala and others

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. G.S. Benipal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶13

-.-

¶14

AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)

¶15

In pursuance of the order dated 17.05.2017, record of the SDCO has been summoned through the office of Advocate General. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab, on perusal of the record brought by Mr. Kulbhushan Rai, Ziledar, submits that there is no compliance of provisions of Section 30B of the Northern Indian Canal & Drainage Act, 1873, in essence, there is no publication of the scheme, inviting objection within 30 days of the publication.

¶16

Faced with this situation, the petitioner filed the writ petition, being aggrieved of the order (Annexure P-5) passed by the SCO setting aside the order of the DCO, giving the finding which is in conformity with the provisions of law but the fact remains that there is no adjudication with regard to compliance of the aforementioned provisions of law, in essence, he should have remitted the matter to the DCO for compliance of the aforementioned provisions of law.

¶17

I have gone through the Order of the SCO vide Annexure P-5

¶18

PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.06.01 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP No.10550 of 2017 -2-

¶20

that there has not been any compliance of provisions of Section 30B, which is essential requirement for the purpose of preparation of scheme for realignment of watercourse.

¶21

In view of the aforementioned fact, while upholding the order of SCO with regard to the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 30B of the Act, the matter is remitted to the DCO to comply with the procedure as noticed above and pass an order thereafter in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to all the parties including the co-sharers.

¶22

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶23

For appearance of the parties before the DCO, Mansa Division

¶24

I.B. Jawahar Ke on 15.06.2017.

¶25

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶26

May 25, 2017 Pankaj*

¶27

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes

¶28

Whether reportable No

¶29

PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.06.01 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Beant Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beant Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer and 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

Banwari Vs Fc (Appeals) Pb Chd & Ors.

Sher Singh & Others. Vs State of Punjab &Ors

Joginder Lal Arora Vs Commissioner and Secy Haryana etc.

Guldin etc. Vs Financial Commissioner , Hry etc.

Rattan Chand Jain Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hari Singh Vs Ld. Appellate Tribunal and Ors.