Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3115 (PNJ)

Labh Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer

2006-08-03

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, NIRMAL YADAV

body2006
Judgment 1. Mukhiar Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, share holder of Moga Burji 23678-R, Jandwala Minor, being owner of land bearing khasra Nos.647, 648, 649 and 650, alleged that the water course had been closed by Lachhman Singh and others, therefore, he is not getting his fields irrigated. It was further averred that the water course passing through the land bearing khasra Nos.647 and 648 was got lined by him at his own expenses. He, therefore, approached the Deputy Collector, Faridkot Canal Division and requested that a Nakka be provided to him for better irrigation of his land. 2. The Deputy Collector, after affording ample opportunity of hearing to all the parties and visiting the site, came to the conclusion that there was nothing to show that the Nakka had been closed and that the running turn of water also did not require any change except the turn on account of ownership. Accordingly, the turn of Mukhtiar Singh having land in khasra Nos.647, 648, 649 and 650, total area measuring 62 kanals 19 marlas was ordered to be kept at serial number 72. The land having khasra No.651 to get the water turn at serial number 72/1 and khasra No.652 would have the turn at serial number 72/2. A copy of the order dated 4.9.2003 has been annexed as Annexure P/3 with the writ petition. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of the Deputy Collector, Faridkot, dated 4.9.2003, petitioners filed an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot Canal Division, Faridkot. He accepted the appeal vide order dated 20.2.2004 holding that water courses were running on the Wats of khasra numbers 646-647 and 641-648; Nakka had not been sanctioned. The other party challenged the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot, before the Superintending Canal Officer. The Superintending Canal Officer though vide his order dated 15.7.2004 came to the conclusion that the order of the Divisional Canal Officer was in the interest of better irrigation, however, remanded the matter to him on the ground that proper hearing was not given to the parties. 4. The Divisional Canal Officer after hearing the parties and examining the site plan found that the land of Mukhtiar Singh son of Bachittar Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners was getting canal water from the water course passing on the north side of khasra numbers 647 and 650. 4. The Divisional Canal Officer after hearing the parties and examining the site plan found that the land of Mukhtiar Singh son of Bachittar Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners was getting canal water from the water course passing on the north side of khasra numbers 647 and 650. The water course is in existence on different Wats from north to south side and there is no Nakka of the appellants. It was further found that the water course `cl had been got brick-lined by the other party. The area of the appellant Mukhtiar Singh is low lying and that of the other party is at higher level and in case Nakka is given as claimed by Mukhtiar Singh on water course `cl, no water will flow in the water course and the other party will loose its turn of water. On the other hand, appellant Mukhtiar Singh does not suffer any loss of irrigation and his land is being irrigated properly. The Divisional Canal Officer, therefore,vide his order dated 8.9.2004 maintained the order of Deputy Collector. Petitioners again challenged the said order of the Divisional Canal Officer dated 8.9.2004 before the Superintending Canal Officer, who also found that in case Nakka is opened for the appellant and he uses the water for irrigation, the entire water course would become empty and the land of the other party being on the higher level, would not get proper irrigation. He, therefore, upheld the order of the authorities below. 5. A perusal of site plan, Annexure P/1, reveals that the land of the petitioners is on the low lying area and getting proper irrigation from the water course `cd and in case Nakka is given at point `e, the land of respondent No.4, which is shown in red colour, would not get proper irrigation. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the canal authorities, which is in the interest of better irrigation of lands of all the parties. 6. Consequently, finding no merit in the writ petition, it is hereby dismissed.