Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2609 (PNJ)

Tarsem Lal v. Superintendent Canal Officer

2010-09-10

RAJIVE BHALLA

body2010
Judgment Rajive Bhalla, J. 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 26.6.2008, passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana, Punjab. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that by allowing the excavation of a water course, through the petitioners land, though on payment of compensation, the petitioners land would be bifurcated. It is further argued that as the Divisional Canal Officer rejected the scheme in its entirety, the Superintending Canal Officer had no jurisdiction to accept the scheme without modification. It is further submitted that respondent No. 4 is already getting irrigation through a pucca khal at point `D, he cannot be allowed a new water course. It is further argued that respondent No. 4 can irrigate his land from the point `P leading to the point `Q as a water course between the point `P and `Q would be much shorter. 3. Counsel for the State of Punjab and the private respondents, on the other hand,submit that the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer is legal and valid. The water course ABCDE would involve excavation of 54 karams of land, as the portions `AB and `DC are already in existence, whereas the water course suggested by the petitioner between point `P and `Q would be much longer, as it would involve excavation of 200 karams of land. Even otherwise, the petitioner has installed a motor at point `Q, respondent No. 4 would not be able to excavate the water course. 4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and find no reason to accept the petition in the absence of any error of law or jurisdiction. 5. The private respondents prayed for excavation of a water course. The alignment as suggested by the subordinate canal staff passes along side a path that bifurcates the petitioners land. The petitioner, therefore, filed objections to the sanction of this water course. The Divisional Canal Officer accepted the objections and dismissed the application, filed by respondent No. 4. Aggrieved by this order, respondent No. 4 filed an appeal, which was allowed and scheme for excavation of the water course, on payment of compensation was allowed. A perusal of the site plan, leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioners land already stands bifurcated by a path. The proposed alignment travels on one side of this path. Aggrieved by this order, respondent No. 4 filed an appeal, which was allowed and scheme for excavation of the water course, on payment of compensation was allowed. A perusal of the site plan, leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioners land already stands bifurcated by a path. The proposed alignment travels on one side of this path. In addition, the water course suggested by the petitioner between points `P and `Q would involve excavating of water course of 200 karams. The new water course ABCDE involves excavating of 54 karams, as portions `AB and `DC are already in existence. In addition, if respondent No. 4 were to take water from the suggested alignment `PQ, he would not be able to effectively irrigate his land, in view of the length of the water course and his turn of water of 27 minutes only. Even otherwise, canal authorities have directed payment of compensation to the petitioner for excavation of the water course. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction, the writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.