Dismissed

Amarjit Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2024LPA/2078/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal against a High Court order that declined to interfere with canal authorities' decisions to restore a demolished watercourse and grant water turns. The Court upheld the concurrent factual findings that the watercourse was restored and operational, noting the appellant was a lessee and had no substantial question for consideration.

What the court decided

AI extract

Amarjit Singh Vs Superintending Canal Officer and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

126

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

LPA No.2078 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.09.2024

Amarjit Singh

…Appellant

Versus

Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

¶10

Present:Mr. Barjinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

¶13

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.(Oral)

¶14

The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.19810 of 2024 titled as ‘ Amarjit Singh vs. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle and others ’ decided on 14.08.2024, whereby learned Single Judge chose not to interfere in the order, which is subject matter of challenge, passed by the Divisional Canal Officer on 28.03.2024 (Annexure P-8) and upheld by the Superintending Canal Officer on 03.07.2024 (Annexure P-9). The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that initial order dated 14.08.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by the DCO, Abohar, has never been challenged wherein the restoration of the watercourse at point ‘D to E’ had been directed keeping in mind the provisions contained in Section 30 FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873.

¶15

NEETU RANI 2024.09.05 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

¶16

LPA No.2078 of 2024 -2-

¶17

It was, accordingly, recorded that after the watercourse had been restored in pursuance of the order dated 14.08.2023 and the private respondent had applied for the water turn/Warabandi and the order dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure P-7) had been passed wherein the finding had been recorded that the watercourse was not restored at the spot. Thereafter, the said order was reversed by the authorities, which was subject matter of consideration before the Writ Court. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there is nothing on record to show that the watercourse had not been restored and had been made permanent by the Power DC Lining Division and it has also so been noted by the DCO in its order dated 28.03.2024.

¶18

A perusal of the order would go on to show that the said authority had checked the record and the site-plan of the spot was viewed and the case had been investigated and the reports had been taken into consideration and it was noticed that the restoration had been done and the watercourse was operational at the spot and had been made permanent and the private respondent had prayed for sanctioning/establishing of Warabandi on the current operational watercourse. The appeal was, accordingly, allowed and the private respondent was given the turn of water on the restored watercourse. In such circumstances, learned Single Judge has opted not to interfere in the proceedings, whereby the turn of water has been granted as such on the ground that the initial order dated 14.08.2023 was never subject matter of challenge, wherein the directions were issued to restore the watercourse. Another reason to prevail to not interfere by

¶19

NEETU RANI 2024.09.05 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

¶20

LPA No.2078 of 2024 -3-

¶21

learned Single Judge was that the appellant was not the owner of the land comprising in Rectangle No.84 Killa Nos.17, 18, 23 and 24 but had taken the land on lease and in such circumstances, learned Single Judge did not grant any benefit to the present appellant.

¶22

We have perused the site-plan (Annexure P-4) which, apparently, would go on to show that the watercourse is running from point ‘D to E’ downwards. The land of the private respondent is stated to be at point ‘E’ onwards whereas the present appellant’s land falling in Killa Nos.18 & 23 is on the eastern side from point ‘D to E’ and the finding as such has been recorded by the DCO in its order dated 14.08.2023 that the side line/wall of the demolished watercourse is still standing on the western side of Rectangle No.84/18 and 23 and on the other side of the watercourse is the eastern side of Rectangle No.84/19-22. It is, thus, a factual-matrix which has been recorded by the authorities after investigating the spot and having come to the conclusion that one side of the watercourse was still standing whereas one falling towards the present appellant’s side was not in existence which led to the restoration order having been passed.

¶23

The perusal of the initial application would also go on to show that the private respondent’s specific grouse was that the watercourse was running for the last 50 years for the agricultural land measuring 02 acres which has been demolished by the present appellant and there is no other watercourse left for his agricultural land which has become wasteful and barren and he had also asked for registering of the FIR as such. In such circumstances, the authorities have taken coercive action to restore the

¶24

NEETU RANI 2024.09.05 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

¶25

LPA No.2078 of 2024 -4-

¶26

status-quo in favour of the landowners on account of the action of the appellant-lessee to demolish the watercourse falling in his fields.

¶27

Thus, no substantial question arises for consideration in the peculiar facts and circumstances and therefore, learned Single Judge did not rightly interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities. Accordingly, we do not find any plausible reason as such to entertain the present Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed in limine .

¶28

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶29

02.09.2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) neetu JUDGE

¶30

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: No

¶31

NEETU RANI 2024.09.05 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

Amarjit Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Amarjit Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurtej Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Balvir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harchand Singh and Others Vs Director Rural Development and Panchayats/ Joint Development Commissioner (Ird) Pun & Ors.

Labh Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Bhim Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another