State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rasil Singh vs Kalyan Singh & Ors on 31 May, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. First Appeal No: 274/2011. Date of Decision: 31.05.2012. Rasil Singh S/O late Shri Ram Singh, R/O Village Jungle Khohar, P.O. Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. Appellant Versus 1. Kalyan Singh S/O late Shri Amin Chand, R/O Village Jungle Khohar, P.O. Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. 2. Assistant Engineer, Public Health & Irrigation, Nadaun at Gugal, District Hamirpur, H.P. 3. Ashok Kumar S/O Shri Rasil Singh, R/O Village Jungle Khohar, P.O. Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. Respondents Coram Honble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member. Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Appellant: Mr. Anshul Attri, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Kalyan Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Giri Raj Singh, Dy. D.A. For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate. O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) No rejoinder has been filed. Cost awarded on the last date, have not been paid. Parties say that the main matter itself may be disposed of today instead of disposing of the application for vacation of stay order.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
3. Appeal is directed against the order dated 11.08.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hamirpur, whereby respondents No.2 & 3 have been directed to provide water to the residential premises of respondent No.1, Kalyan Singh, by laying pipeline along a pucca path, shown in red in the site plan Annexure-O and it has been further ordered that in case the appellant prevents them from laying the pipe, police help can be sought. Appellant is aggrieved by this order, as according to him, pipe has been ordered to be taken along a pucca path, which is his private property.
4. Respondent No.1, Kalyan Singh, has his house in village Jungle Khohar. There is no arrangement for supply of tap water to his premises. He applied for a water connection to respondents No.2 & 3 in the complaint, who are impleaded as opposite parties No.1 & 3. They did not release the connection on the plea that the present appellant, who was impleaded as opposite party No.2 in the complaint, had not been permitting to lay the water line along the path claiming that he was the owner of the site of said path.
5. Complaint was contested by the present appellant, who claimed that he being the owner of the site of the path, had legal right to object to the taking of a waterline along that path. Complaint has been allowed vide impugned order and direction issued to respondents No.2 & 3, as aforesaid.
6. We find on record a plan of the site of the path, which is Annexure-O. Path is shown as pucca path. It has been admitted during the course of hearing that all the villagers are using this path for approaching their respective houses. Distribution point from where connection can be released in favour of the respondent No.1 is on side of the point from where the aforesaid path bifurcates from the main road. It is only from this point that supply line can be taken to the premises of respondent No.1, as per learned Government Pleader, representing the respondent No.2. Since, the path is being used by all the residents of the village, even though the appellant may be the owner of the site of the said path, as claimed by him, no damage would be caused to him, in case pipeline for supplying water to the premises of the respondent No.1 is taken along it because the same is not being used for a purpose other than as approach by the residents of the village, for their houses.
7. In view of the above stated position, we dismiss the appeal. However, it is made clear that in case at any point of time, the matter is taken to civil court and the civil court passes a decree holding that water line cannot be taken along the path because of the site belonging to the appellant, respondents No.2 & 3 will act accordingly.
8. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member May 31, 2012.
N Mehta) [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?