Jagdish Vs. the Deputy Collector, Rori Division and ors.

Jagdish vs The Deputy Collector, Rori Division and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Mar 25, 1998

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/625439

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/625439
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
Decided On: Mar 25, 1998
Case Number: Civil Writ Petition No. 8199 of 1995
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract Rejection of highest bid Challenge as to Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in ...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 - Sections 55(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jagdish

Advocate Ashok Verma, Adv.

Respondent

The Deputy Collector, Rori Division and ors.

Advocate B.S. Chahar, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 - Sections 55(2)
Reported In: (1998)120PLR385

Excerpt

.....statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to..........canal officer to remove the grievance of the petitioner by changing the sequences of the waris of khata no. 76. challenging the orders passed by respondents 1 to 3 this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.2. there is no dispute of the fact that the fields of phusa ram, dalip, nand ram and satya narain are cultivated by the water course xy and abcz. there is a channel from point 'a' running across the field of dalip to irrigate the fields of phusa ram. in between the lands of dalip and jagdish the land of nand ram is situated. nand ram is taking water from point 'a'. the petitioner herein wants to take the water from point 'b' as shown in annexure p1, but the grievance of the petitioner is that he is not allowed to take water from point 'b' or point 'c to irrigate his fields. the main channel 'y' to 'z' passes through the fields of dalip, nand ram and jagdish. from the impugned orders, it is not clear from which point the writ petitioner jagdish has to draw water. there is no decision as such by the authorities in what manner and from what point the petitioner is to draw water to irrigate his fields as the same is not clear from the reading of the orders passed by respondents 1 to 3. admittedly, prior to 1992 the entire land of phusa ram, nand lai and jagdish was under joint cultivation and during the year 1992-93 there was a partition between the father and his sons i.e. phusa ram, nand ram and jagdish. after partition, warabandi has to be provided to the lands separately.3. on a consideration of facts and circumstances, i am of the opinion that it is a fit case for remanding the matter to the superintending canal officer for fixing the point from where the petitioner and others have to take water for the purpose of irrigating their fields. the superintending canal officer shall prepare a sketch of the fields and specify the points from where the respective owners of the land have to take water for the purpose of irrigating their fields.4......

Full Judgment

ORDER

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by respondents 1, 2 and 3 which are annexed as Annexures P5 to P7 to the writ petition. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 are brothers. They are irrigating their land from the water course which is marked as XYZ in the plan which is Annexure PI to the writ petition. The joint holding of the petitioner and his brother 4th respondent and their father Phusa Ram was partitioned among them in the year 1992-93. No separate Naka is provided for the irrigation of holding of the petitioner. He is taking water from point 'A'. The 4th respondent moved an application before the Deputy Collector under Section 55(2) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 for providing a separate Naka. On his application, a delivery point was fixed at point 'B'. An appeal was filed by the 5th respondent before the Divisional Canal Officer, Rori Division, Sirsa who allowed the appeal on 3.8.1992. Against the said order, the 4th respondent filed a revision petition before the Superintending Canal Officer who dismissed the same by his order dated 28.10.1992. Thereafter the Deputy Collector passed an order on 19.10.1993 on the statement of Shri Jagdish, petitioner herein. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Divisional Canal Officer who also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner stating that the office is not in a position to change the decision of the higher Court. In the revision filed by the petitioner, the Superintending Canal Officer modified the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer to remove the grievance of the petitioner by changing the sequences of the waris of Khata No. 76. Challenging the orders passed by respondents 1 to 3 this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. There is no dispute of the fact that the fields of Phusa Ram, Dalip, Nand Ram and Satya Narain are cultivated by the water course XY and ABCZ. There is a channel from point 'A' running across the field of Dalip to irrigate the fields of Phusa Ram. In between the lands of Dalip and Jagdish the land of Nand Ram is situated. Nand Ram is taking water from point 'A'. The petitioner herein wants to take the water from point 'B' as shown in Annexure P1, but the grievance of the petitioner is that he is not allowed to take water from point 'B' or point 'C to irrigate his fields. The main channel 'Y' to 'Z' passes through the fields of Dalip, Nand Ram and Jagdish. From the impugned orders, it is not clear from which point the writ petitioner Jagdish has to draw water. There is no decision as such by the authorities in what manner and from what point the petitioner is to draw water to irrigate his fields as the same is not clear from the reading of the orders passed by respondents 1 to 3. Admittedly, prior to 1992 the entire land of Phusa Ram, Nand Lai and Jagdish was under joint cultivation and during the year 1992-93 there was a partition between the father and his sons i.e. Phusa Ram, Nand Ram and Jagdish. After partition, warabandi has to be provided to the lands separately.

3. On a consideration of facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for remanding the matter to the Superintending Canal Officer for fixing the point from where the petitioner and others have to take water for the purpose of irrigating their fields. The Superintending Canal Officer shall prepare a sketch of the fields and specify the points from where the respective owners of the land have to take water for the purpose of irrigating their fields.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to Superintending Canal Officer to prepare a sketch of the fields and specify the points from where the respective land owners have to take water to irrigate their fields and he is further directed to dispose of the matter within four months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 1998 Same Parties Jagdish vs The Deputy Collector, Rori Division and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge T.H.B. Chalapathi, J. Acts & Sections Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 - Sections 55(2)

Civil