Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: SONEPAT in Mohinder Singh And Ors. vs Raghu Nath on 4 February, 2002Matching Fragments
1. Challenge herein is to a judgment and decree dated 7.4.1995 rendered by the Subordinate Judge, II Class, Sonepat decreeing the suit of the plaintiff Raghu Nath who filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction primarily challenging the order dated 16.1.1987 (Ex. P1). The case of the plaintiff was that he is owner in possession of land bearing khewat No. 45, Khata No. 71, Rectangle No. 32, Killa No. 16/20 and rectangle No. 33, Kilt No. 20/1 situated in the area of village Fatehpur, Tehsil and Distt. Sonepat. The plaintiff had got this land acquired by the Canal Authorities and had got sanctioned a watercourse on this land for irrigating his fields. Earlier Killa Nos.32/16/2 and 33/20/1 were owned by Bhagwana (defendants No. 3), who later died and was represented by his legal representatives Mohinder Singh Jai Bhagwan, Ishwar Singh and Azad Singh and some other so-shares. Defendants No. 3 in collusion with Canal Authorities field an application that he had be allowed to irrigate his fields comprised in Kill Nos. 33/11 and 20 from the water-course which exists on the land of the plaintiff, fl has further been his case that files of defendant No. 3 were always irrigated from another water-course and not from the water-course from which he irrigated his files. On the application of defendants No. 3, order Annexure P/1 dated 16.1.1987 was passed vide which the application of defendant No. 3 was accepted and he was allowed to share the water-course in dispute. In so far as defendants No. 1 and 2 are concerned, their names were deleted from the array of the plaint on the request of the plaintiff. The contesting defendant opposed the cause of plaintiff on various grounds inclusive of bar of civil court's jurisdiction. The pleas raised by them would reflected from the issues that came to be framed by the trial which are herein reproduced;
"After hearing the parties and perusal of the case, reports of Ziledar, Sonepat and Sub Divisional Canal Officer, 1 consider the request of the applicant as genuine. I hereby order under Section 18(2) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act allocation of Field No. 33/11-20 on water-course DBF passing through Kill No. 33/20 and 32/16 and it was acquired for use by the respondent and farther direct that the applicant will deposit the share of the costs of water-course DEF as determined by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Sonepat."
"After hearing the parties and perusal of the case, reports of the Ziledar Sonepat and Sub Divisional Canal Officer, I consider the request of the applicant is genuine. I hereby order under Section 18(2) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act allocation of filed No. 33/11/20 on water-course DBF passing through Kill No. 33/20, 3216 and it was required for use by the respondent and further direct that the applicant will deposit the share of the cost of water-course DBF as determined by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Sonepat."