Nathu Ram Vs. State of Punjab and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1142424
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJun-02-2014
AppellantNathu Ram
RespondentState of Punjab and ors.
Excerpt:
cwp no.11307 of 2012 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cwp no.11307 of 2012 date of decision :02.06.2014 nathu ram ....petitioner v/s state of punjab & ors....respondents before : hon'ble mr.justice rajan gupta present: mr.d.s.brar, advocate for the petitioner. mr.suresh singla, addl. a.g.punjab. mr.vishal ranjan, advocate for mr.anish setia, advocate for respondents no.4 to 15. rajan gupta j. petitioner is aggrieved against order dated 15.03.2012 passed by superintending canal officer upholding the order dated 03.02.2010 passed by divisional canal officer whereby application filed by him for shifting of his area from outlet no.124750/r to outlet no.132767/r has been rejected. learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. he submits that authorities below have committed a grave error while declining his prayer for shifting of outlet. according to him, shifting of outlet will not cause any loss of irrigation to the land of private respondents. he, thus, submits that impugned orders are unsustainable and deserve to be set-aside. learned counsel appearing for respondents no.4 to 15 has opposed the prayer. he submits that land of petitioner was properly irrigated from outlet no.124750/r. according to him, in kumar ajay case prayer of petitioner’s for shifting of outlet is accepted, it would 2014.06.02 16:37 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.11307 of 2012 2 cause great loss of irrigation to the land of respondents and other shareholders of outlet. impugned orders are, thus, sustainable. i have heard learned counsel for the parties. brief factual background of the case is that petitioner was shareholder of outlet no.124750/r and is irrigating his fields. petitioner moved an application before the divisional canal officer for shifting of his outlet from 124750/r to outlet no.132767/r for better irrigation. said authority dismissed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was getting proper irrigation from the existing outlet and in case his area was added to outlet no.132767/r it would effect the size of outlet. aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before the superintending canal officer. same was, however, dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2012. aggrieved, present petition has been preferred before this court. it is evident that superintending canal officer came to the conclusion that most of the shareholders were opposed to the demand of petitioner for shifting of outlet. he, thus, rejected the prayer observing that irrigation to area of respondents, which included an orchard, would be effected. already land of appellant was getting proper irrigation from existing outlet. i find no infirmity with the order passed by the authority. canal authorities, who are experts in the field, have examined the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned. reasoned orders have been passed. no ground is made out to interfere in writ jurisdiction. dismissed. june 02, 2014 (rajan gupta) ajay/rajpal judge kumar ajay 2014.06.02 16:37 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

CWP No.11307 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11307 of 2012 Date of decision :02.06.2014 Nathu Ram ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab & ors....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.D.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Suresh Singla, Addl.

A.G.Punjab.

Mr.Vishal Ranjan, Advocate for Mr.Anish Setia, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 15.

RAJAN GUPTA J.

Petitioner is aggrieved against order dated 15.03.2012 passed by Superintending Canal Officer upholding the order dated 03.02.2010 passed by Divisional Canal Officer whereby application filed by him for shifting of his area from outlet No.124750/R to outlet No.132767/R has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order.

He submits that authorities below have committed a grave error while declining his prayer for shifting of outlet.

According to him, shifting of outlet will not cause any loss of irrigation to the land of private respondents.

He, thus, submits that impugned orders are unsustainable and deserve to be set-aside.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 15 has opposed the prayer.

He submits that land of petitioner was properly irrigated from outlet No.124750/R.

According to him, in Kumar Ajay case prayer of petitioner’s for shifting of outlet is accepted, it would 2014.06.02 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.11307 of 2012 2 cause great loss of irrigation to the land of respondents and other shareholders of outlet.

Impugned orders are, thus, sustainable.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Brief factual background of the case is that petitioner was shareholder of outlet No.124750/R and is irrigating his fields.

Petitioner moved an application before the Divisional Canal Officer for shifting of his outlet from 124750/R to outlet No.132767/R for better irrigation.

Said authority dismissed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was getting proper irrigation from the existing outlet and in case his area was added to outlet No.132767/R it would effect the size of outlet.

Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer.

Same was, however, dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2012.

Aggrieved, present petition has been preferred before this court.

It is evident that Superintending Canal Officer came to the conclusion that most of the shareholders were opposed to the demand of petitioner for shifting of outlet.

He, thus, rejected the prayer observing that irrigation to area of respondents, which included an orchard, would be effected.

Already land of appellant was getting proper irrigation from existing outlet.

I find no infirmity with the order passed by the authority.

Canal authorities, who are experts in the field, have examined the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

Reasoned orders have been passed.

No ground is made out to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

June 02, 2014 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay/Rajpal JUDGE Kumar Ajay 2014.06.02 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document