Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 May, 2013
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Civil Writ Petition No. 16377 of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 16377 of 2006
Date of Decision: 8.5.2013
Hardeep Singh and another
.....Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anjum Ahmad, Additional A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
****
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)
Petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 3.10.2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by Chief Canal Officer BWS, Irrigation Department, Haryana-respondent No.1, order dated 31.5.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakhra Water Services Circle, Kaithal-respondent No.2 and order dated 24.4.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Pundri Water Services Division, Kaithal-respondent No.3.
Civil Writ Petition No. 16377 of 2006 2
On 4.5.2013, this Court passed the following order:-
During the course of hearing, it transpired that the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents are agreeable to the proposal that the petitioners may get the irrigation through the watercourse DCB from outlet No.24750-RD for their land shown in red colour, whereas the private respondent may get the irrigation for his field through water course AB from outlet 25180-RD shows in the site plan, Annexure P-1.
Learned counsel for the contesting respondent further submits that in compliance of the order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, private respondent No.4, after making strenuous efforts got no objection from all the co-sharers of these outlets and also completed all other necessary formalities enabling the respondent- Canal Authorities to provide both these water courses from these outlets, noted above.
Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Purshotam Goyal, Head Revenue Clerk, Irrigation Department, Office of Executive Engineer Water Services Division, Pundri, Kaithal submits that the Department has got no objection to the proposal put by the contesting parties. However, he seeks short adjournment to file an affidavit of the Executive Engineer, as he will be the competent authority.
On his request, adjourned to
08.05.2013.
Copy of this order be supplied to
Civil Writ Petition No. 16377 of 2006 3
learned counsel for the parties under
signatures of Court Secretary attached to this Bench, for meticulous compliance, thereof." In compliance of the order dated 4.5.2013 passed by this Court, affidavit of Arvind Kaushik, Executive Engineer, Pundri Water Services Division, Kaithal, filed in the Court today, is taken on record and copy thereof has been supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Sh. Arvind Kaushik, Executive Engineer, Pundri Water Services Division, Kaithal, submits that Nakka at point A, shown in site plan Annexure P-1, is running at the site and the department will have no objection if the parties to this litigation, with their mutual consent, construct a pucca watercourse from point A to B at their own expenses. He further submits that it will be technically feasible for the department and also viable for the parties, from irrigation point of view, to irrigate the land of respondent No.4 and his co-sharers from watercourse AB.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from Sh. Baljinder Singh son of petitioner No.2-Balbir Singh, submits that petitioners shall also have no objection if respondent No.4 along with his other co-sharers construct a pucca watercourse from point A to B on the murabba line. He further undertakes not to cause any kind of interference in the construction of watercourse from point A to B. However, he submits that whatever will be the expenses incurred on construction on the watercourse A to B, petitioners will not share Civil Writ Petition No. 16377 of 2006 4 expenses thereof. The entire expenses will be borne by respondent No.4 along with his other co-sharers of watercourse AB. It is further made clear that the land will be used half and half on the murabba line, while constructing watercourse AB.
So far as watercourse DCB is concerned, that will be exclusive watercourse of the petitioners and their co-sharers. Respondent No.4 and his other co-sharers of watercourse AB will have no concern with this watercourse DCB.
Learned counsel for the State also submits that once these separate and independent watercourses viz. DCB and AB are constructed for the petitioners along with their co-sharers, as well as for respondent No.4 and his co-sharers, respective warabandies thereof shall be fixed strictly, in accordance with law.
In view of the above statements and undertaking given by the petitioners as well as by respondent No.4, through their respective counsel, the present petition is disposed of, with the following consent order, issuing the directions, as under:-
1. As agreed between the parties, watercourse DCB shall be used only by the petitioners and their co-sharers on this watercourse DCB.
2. Again, as agreed between the parties, respondent No.4 along with his other co-sharers will be entitled to construct a pucca watercourse from point A to B on the murabba line. The petitioners and his other co-sharers shall not raise any objection and will also not obstruct the Civil Writ Petition No. 16377 of 2006 5 construction of watercourse from point A to B in any manner, rather the petitioners and their co-
sharers shall extend their full cooperation to respondent No.4 and his other co-sharers in constructing the watercourse from point A to B as pucca one, on the murabba line. However, all the expenses incurred on the construction of watercourse from point A to B shall be borne by respondent No.4 and his other co-sharers on this watercourse A to B and the petitioners will not share the expenses thereof.
3. It is further directed that the land shall be used half and half on the murabba line for the purpose of construction of watercourse from point A to B.
4. As stated by Sh. Arvind Kaushik, Executive Engineer, Pundri Water Services Division, Kaithal that watercourse from point A to B will be technically feasible for the department and viable for the parties, from irrigation point of view, the Executive Engineer, Pundri Water Services Division, Kaithal, shall be present on the spot, at the time of construction of the watercourse from point A to B, to ensure that the watercourse is properly constructed and no hindrance is caused by anybody including the Civil Writ Petition No. 16377 of 2006 6 petitioners.
5. The watercourse from point A to B shall be used only by respondent No.4 and his other co-sharers on this watercourse AB. Disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 8.5.2013 Ak Sharma