Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Shyam Singh Katoch vs . State Of Hp & Others on 17 May, 2022

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia

Shyam Singh Katoch Vs. State of HP & others .

CWP No. 1444 of 2022 17.5.2022 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur and Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Deputy Advocate Generals with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for the respondents­State.

Ms. Neha Negi, Advocate vice Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate, for respondents No. 5 and 6.

Mr. Nishant Kumar and Mr. Virender Sharma, Advocates, for respondent No. 7.

Ms. Narmada, Advocate, for respondent No. 8.

Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 9 and 10.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the main grievance of the petitioner at this stage is that the kuhal in question has not been repaired causing virtual 100% loss of the water that is accordingly being discharged by the project proponents.

His statement is refuted by learned Law Officer by inviting our attention to paras 3 and 9 of the reply, which read as under:

::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2022 20:13:42 :::CIS

"That the replying respondents department had .

constructed a Flow Irrigation Scheme Baragran for providing irrigation facility of CCA 26.73 Hect. In the year 2000. The Administrative and expenditure sanction of this scheme was accorded vide Chief Engineer (CZ) Mandi vide letter No. CE (CZ)­JSV­WSS­LAC­2­45/98­4358­ 63 dated 3.8.1998 amounting to Rs. 20.78 lakhs.

This Kuhal was damaged to some extent during flash floor in September 2018.Despite that replying respondent department had made sincere efforts to provide irrigation facility to the beneficiaries which include the land of the petitioner by carrying out repair work time to time. It is respectfully submitted that due to flood the head weir alongwith 150 meter RCC main channel had receded into Nallah which has been restored by constructing a "RCC head weir with trench covered with MS grating" of size measuring 10 meters long 01 meter wide and 3.5 meters height across the nallah. Additionally, the structure in the shape of wire crates on both upstream and downstream sides of head weir. A copy of photograph of site is annexed and marked as Annexure R­1.It is submitted that about 500 meters upstream to the nallah there situated a hydro power project of respondent No. 7 and then comes about 200 meters below the hydro power project of respondent No.8. The water released by one project is used thereafter by the other project. However, sufficient discharge remains to the need of Flow Irrigation Scheme, Baragram. In this view of the matter the petition is not maintainable against the replying respondents department and deserves dismissal in the interest of justice.

::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2022 20:13:42 :::CIS

9. That the contents of this para are matter of .

record as far as there exist no other kuhal to the petitioner. However, petitioner is getting sufficient water for irrigation purpose through the present canal. As far as representation made to the respondent department, it is submitted that the kuhal has been permanently restored by constructing RCC head weir across the nallah by making a permanent solution which is evident of Annexure R­1 supra, hence there is no merit in the representation of the petitioner. In this view r of the matter the petition is not maintainable and deserves dismissal in the interest of justice."

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we deem it proper to appoint Local Commissioners Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate and Mr.Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate, who shall visit the site in question on this weekend and submit their report on 24.5.2022. Respondents No. 7 and 8 shall provide all the records as also the relevant assistance at the spot.

The fee and expenses of the Local Commissioners are assessed at Rs. 30,000/­ each and Rs. 15,000/­ towards miscellaneous expenses like boarding, lodging and fuel etc. These costs shall initially be paid by the IPH department. However, in case the report goes ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2022 20:13:42 :::CIS against the petitioner, then it shall be the petitioner .

who will be liable to pay the fee and expenses, as assessed above.

List on 24.5.2022.

                                 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)




                                          Judge
           r                (Chander Bhusan Barowalia)

                                     Judge
     May 17, 2022
     (Kalpana)








                                 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2022 20:13:42 :::CIS