Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kurara Ram & Others vs Mahender Partap & Others on 26 November, 2014
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CWP No. 9818 of 1995 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 9818 of 1995
Date of decision : 26.11.2014
Kurara Ram & anr.
....Petitioners
V/s
Mahendra Pratap & ors.
....Respondents
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG Haryana.
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondents no. 2 to 4. RAJAN GUPTA J.
Petitioners pray for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders Annexures P7 & P9 dated 31.12.1993 & 20.05.1995 respectively.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the orders. He submits that land of the petitioners was not properly irrigated from water course 'CDEF' which is on one corner whereas water course 'AB' touches their fields. According to him, in case prayer of the petitioners' for shifting of outlet is not accepted, it would cause great loss of irrigation to them.
Plea has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondents no. 2 to 4. He submits that due to existence of water course 'AB' land of respondents was divided into two parts and they are not able to irrigate it properly. According to him, AJAY KUMAR 2014.11.28 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 9818 of 1995 2 matter has been thoroughly examined at the level of canal authorities. Impugned orders are, thus, sustainable.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Brief factual background of the case is that water course AB is running at the site in question since 1977 and petitioners were irrigating their land from the said watercourse. Respondent no. 4 moved an application before Divisional Canal Officer, Rori seeking exclusion of his land on the southern end from water course AB by providing alternative source of irrigation to the petitioners. Said authority, however, dismissed the same. Thereafter respondents no. 2 to 4 dismantled the water course AB which was got restored to its original position vide order dated 22.01.1991 by Sub Divisional Canal Officer. Aggrieved, respondent no. 2 to 4 filed appeal before Superintendent Canal Officer. Same was, however, dismissed vide order dated 08.05.1991. Thereafter, petitioners moved an application before Divisional Canal Officer for sanction of existing water course on compensation basis. Said authority, however, declined the prayer of the petitioners and sanctioned the water course 'CDEF' for irrigating their fields. Said order was challenged before the Superintending Canal Officer who vide his order dated 13/16.03.1992 remanded the matter to Divisional Canal Officer to decide afresh after taking into consideration provisions of Canal Act. In compliance of remand order, Divisional Canal Officer reconsidered the issue. He vide his order dated 7/15.01.1993 again upheld his earlier order vide which watercourse 'CDEF' was sanctioned for irrigating the fields of petitioners. AJAY KUMAR Aggrieved, petitioners preferred appeal before Superintending Canal 2014.11.28 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 9818 of 1995 3 officer. Same was, however, dismissed vide order 22.05.1993. Order was unsuccessfully challenged before Chief Canal Officer. Petitioners preferred CWP No. 1887 of 1994 before this court wherein a compromise was arrived at between the parties. They agreed that water course 'AB' on khaka plan 'P/1' running at site since 1956 shall continue to run without any hindrance from private respondents. On the basis of said compromise, this court remitted the matter to Chief Canal Officer to decide afresh. The parties, thereafter, appeared before the said authority. After considering rival contentions, Chief Canal Officer came to the conclusion that there was no consensus between the parties. He, thus, maintained the original decision whereby water course 'CDEF' was sanctioned. I find no infirmity with the order passed. The matter has been thoroughly examined by the canal authorities. In my considered view sanctioning of water course 'CDEF' would not cause any prejudice to the petitioners. Fields of the petitioners can easily be commanded by water course 'CDEF'. Under the circumstances, there is no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Dismissed.
November 26, 2014 (RAJAN GUPTA)
Ajay JUDGE
AJAY KUMAR
2014.11.28 15:43
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document