Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 405 (PNJ)

Jagir Singh v. State of Punjab

2001-04-03

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, N.K.SUD

body2001
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioner challenges the orders dated May 20, 1998 and November 19, 1998 despite the fact that the writ petition against these orders was dismissed by this Court vide order dated November 3, 1999. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed. 2. Respondent No. 4 made a petition for the sanction of a water-course to his land from outlet No. 43760-TR. Respondents No. 5 to 7 were allegedly impleaded as parties in the petition. Vide order dated May 20, 1998. a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-2 with this petition, the application of the fourth respondent was allowed by the Divisional Canal Officer. Aggrieved by this order, respondents No. 5 to 7, who are the brothers of the present petitioner, filed an appeal. It was considered by the Superintending Canal Officer. Vide order dated November 19, 1998, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition, the authority dismissed the appeal. Respondents No. 5 to 7 filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3393 of 1999 in this Court. This petition was dismissed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated November 3, 1999. 3. Having lost upto the High Court, the present petitioner filed an application before the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot, praying that the water-course may not be carved through his holding. In this petition it was alleged that there was an oral family settlement and that he was in possession of land bearing Khasra Nos. 43/13, 14/1 and 18/2. It is stated that this petition is still pending. However, on January 10, 2001 the Divisional Canal Officer determined the amount of compensation which was admissible on account of the land used for the water-course. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the orders dated May 20, 1998, November 19, 1998 and January 10, 2001, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-9 be quashed. 4. In the petition, it has been alleged that a regular family settlement had been arrived at and recorded on May 18, 1994. Thus, the petitioner was in exclusive possession of the land indicated in the plan, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition. 4. In the petition, it has been alleged that a regular family settlement had been arrived at and recorded on May 18, 1994. Thus, the petitioner was in exclusive possession of the land indicated in the plan, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition. Since the water-course is passing through his fields, the authorities were bound to give him an opportunity of hearing. They having failed to grant him on opportunity, the impugned orders are vitiated. 5. Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the water course as sanctioned by the authorities would pass through the northern part of the petitioners land. It would affect the petitioners interest. The petitioner having not been heard, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Reliance has been placed on the family settlement, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. 6. The basic issue that arises in this case is was the land actually partitioned vide Annexure P-1 ? 7. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Canal Officer, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-8 with the writ petition, shows that the claim was made on the basis of an oral family settlement. This application was filed on November 15, 2000. No reference was made to a written family settlement. Secondly, it has been conceded by the counsel for the petitioner that in the revenue record the alleged family settlement was never incorporated. Even in the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition, the holding is not shown to have been partitioned. No other record has been produced to show that the petitioner was in exclusive possession of any area of land. Thus, It is clear that the family settlement, which is now sought to be made the basis of the claim in this Court was never relied upon by the petitioner before any authority. It was not incorporated in the revenue record. The Khasra Girdawari entries have not been produced to show that the brothers were in exclusive possession of their shares as mentioned in the family settlement. In this situation, we are not satisfied that the family settlement is a genuine document or that it was ever acted upon. It was not incorporated in the revenue record. The Khasra Girdawari entries have not been produced to show that the brothers were in exclusive possession of their shares as mentioned in the family settlement. In this situation, we are not satisfied that the family settlement is a genuine document or that it was ever acted upon. Since the entire claim made by the petitioner is based on this document, we are unable to sustain it. 8. It has been submitted by the counsel that the petitioner had a right to be heard before any order could be passed to his prejudice. It is the admitted position that the petitioners three brothers were parties in the proceedings. The estate being joint was duly represented. They were heard. Even the challenge to the order as made upto this Court was not sustained. It is only after having lost in the High Court that a new plea has been trotted out. Even this has not been substantiated. 9. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the petition is only a device adopted by the petitioner to delay the implementation of the orders passed on May 20, 1998 and November 19, 1998. 10. No argument has been raised to challenge the order dated January 10, 2001. 11. No other point has been raised. 12. In view of the above, we find no merit In this petition. 13. It is, consequently, dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.