The High Court dismissed a 20-year-old writ petition challenging orders on water canal warabandi fixation, holding no cause of action survived due to the lapse of time.
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.5364 of 1997
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5364 of 1997 Date of decision:03.05.2017
Satish Bahadur
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate for the petitioner.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
The petitioner had approached this Court by challenging the orders dated 25.05.1982 (Annexure P-3), 18.9.1984 (Annexure P-7), 3.5.1983 (Annexure P-6), 27.10.1992 (Annexure P-9) and 8.7.1996 (Annexure P-11) passed by Deputy Collector, Divisional Canal Officer and Superintending Canal Officer, respectively regarding fixation of warabandi of outlet R.D.129162-L of Arnewala Distributory of Abohar Division on the various grounds.
The present writ petition is of the year 1997 and notice of motion was issued on 14.05.1997. The registry has placed this matter on account of effecting service upon legal representatives of respondent No.4. However, this petition was admitted vide order dated 27.9.2001 on the ground that matter is of the year 1997 which is still at motion stage and there is no interim order. Once the petitioner has not succeeded in obtaining
Savita 2017.05.05 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CWP No.5364 of 1997
{2}
the interim stay with regard to fixation of waranbandi, much less from the date when the orders were passed, therefore, in my view, no cause of action survives for the petitioner to seek vindication of the grievance owing to lapse of almost 20 years.
Resultantly, the orders under challenge are upheld and the writ petition stands dismissed. There is no need to effect service upon LRs of respondent No.4.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 03, 2017 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
Savita 2017.05.05 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
Satish Bahadur
The Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
