JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral):- CM No. 1680 of 2013 : Allowed as prayed for. CM No. 1681 of 2013 : At the time of arguments on this application, with consent of counsel for the parties, CWP No. 14655 of 1999 is taken up on board for final disposal today itself. CWP No. 14655 of 1999 : 1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 15.7.1999 (P-5) passed by respondent No.1, vide which when accepting an appeal, order dated 21.10.1997 passed by the Collector was set aside, Further prayer of the petitioner is to restrain the respondents from creating any hindrance in the free flow of water. 2. Gurcharan Singh-respondent No.4, filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), against the petitioner and Gram Panchayat, with a prayer that encroachment made on a public street (shown with letters ‘CEFD’ in Green colour in the site plan annexed with the application as Annexure P- 1), be removed. 3. After hearing both the parties and giving them opportunity to produce evidence, the competent authority/the Collector, Hoshiarpur dismissed the application on 21.10.1997. Relevant portion of the order reads thus :- “Counsel for the respondent No.1 has been heard and the record has been perused thoroughly. After hearing the counsel for the respondent No.1, perusing the statements of the witnesses as well as the record, it has been found that there is no street in existence between the house of Harbhajan Singh and Harjinder Singh and there is only an underground Nali. The respondent No.1 vide Exhibit R-1 to R-3, has corroborated that he has purchased this house and no street exists through his house. The only way and street upto his house is from West side and that passage is also not owned by the Panchayat. It is the ownership of Didar Singh etc. and the bricks on that passage and street are installed by Didar Singh etc. The petitioner has not produced any such proof which can corroborate that the street exists through the disputed land or it is the ownership of Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat has also not produced any evidence or witness and neither it has submitted the written statement. and the bricks on that passage and street are installed by Didar Singh etc. The petitioner has not produced any such proof which can corroborate that the street exists through the disputed land or it is the ownership of Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat has also not produced any evidence or witness and neither it has submitted the written statement. Accordingly, from the statements of the witnesses as well as the evidence produced by the respondent No.1, it is corroborated that there is no street in existence between the houses of Harbhajan Singh and respondent No.1 Harjinder Singh, only an underground Nali is in existence. Through this underground Nali, water of three-four houses passes. There is street upto the house of Sohan Singh and from his house the street goes towards West side. Therefore, keeping in view the above , and while agreeing with the contentions made by the counsel for the respondent, I hereby dismiss the application of the petitioner.” 4. It was noted by the Collector that street comes to an end where house owned by the petitioner starts. It was further noted that on the back of the house of the petitioner, said street passes through the house of Didar Singh. The Gram Panchayat did not produce any evidence before the Collector to claim existence of street through land/plot/house of the petitioner. 5. Respondent No.4 went in appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 15.7.1999. Application filed by respondent No.4 under Section 7 of the Act, for removing un-authorised occupation by the petitioner over the public street, was allowed. To decide lis between the parties, the Appellate Authority framed the following two issues :- “i) That there was a street and drain for natural flow of water which has been encroached upon by the respondents; ii) That there was a civil suit filed by Harbhajan Singh and others in which the Civil Court had restricted the parties from diverting the natural flow of water in the street.” 6. It was to be determined whether any street/drain has been encroached upon by the petitioner. Effect of the Civil Court judgment between the parties was also to be seen. 7. It was to be determined whether any street/drain has been encroached upon by the petitioner. Effect of the Civil Court judgment between the parties was also to be seen. 7. The Appellate Authority, thereafter, looked into the evidence on record and noted a fact that existence of underground pipeline is proved on record, for discharge of dirty water of the houses, which came up to the Southern side of the house of the petitioner i.e. houses of Harbhajan Singh, Sohan Singh etc., through the house of the petitioner. The said pipeline also passes through the house of Harbhajan Singh, which is shown in the site plan Anneuxre P-1. 8. It was also noticed that the Civil Court has restrained the petitioner from interfering in the free flow of dirty water, through the underground pipeline passing through his house. 9. Taking note of judgment of the Civil Court and evidence on record, the Appellate Authority observed as under :- “i) The respondents claimed that the drain was constructed privately and it was underground beneath their house and not a public drain. Exhibit R-4 is map of the area which was produced by the respondents in which it has been clearly marked that there is a drain along with street from Southern side upto the house of Harbhajan Singh. After that there is house of Harjinder Singh and on the Northern side of this house, there is again a street and drain which takes water towards to the pond on the Northern side of the village. The respondents have argued that the site for the house was purchased by them and there has been no street and drain between the house of Harbhajan Singh and Harjinder Singh. At the same time they admitted that there existed a private drain which was under ground. This is not understandable how the street and open drain coming to the Northern side becomes underground in the house of Harbhajan Singh. ii) In the suit for permanent injunction, the Civil Court has also restricted Shri Harbhajan Singh, Joginder Singh from interfering in the natural flow of water although the suit was filed by one Sohan Singh and not the present respondents. As already discussed in the Civil Suit also, the Civil Court had restricted the respondents vide its order dated 26.11.1993 regarding interference in the natural flow of water. As already discussed in the Civil Suit also, the Civil Court had restricted the respondents vide its order dated 26.11.1993 regarding interference in the natural flow of water. The allegation of connivance with encroachers has been levelled against the Gram Panchayat. The allegation prima facie seem to be correct, because the Gram Panchayat did not make any appearance before the Collector or in the Civil Suit. If the Gram Panchayat had acted judiciously and in a fair manner and if it had filed replies to the application some other facts would have come to the notice of Courts/competent authorities. Inspite of this inability on the part of the Gram Panchayat, it is clear that street and drain was available which has been covered in the house of Harjinder Singh. In view of these discussion, the appeal is accepted and order of the Collector is set aside with the direction to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to make the street and drain functioning so that natural flow of water is not stopped in any manner.” 10. It was noted that under ground pipeline passes through the house of the petitioner and also through the house of Harbhajan Singh. It was also noted that upto the house of the petitioner and upto the hosue of Harbhajan Singh, which has now been purchased by added respondent No.5-Sohan Singh, street and drain exist, but through these two houses the street does not exist, however, drain (under ground) exists in these two plots/houses. 11. By noting as above, it was rightly said that there may be a street, which was encroached upon, and may be, under some compulsion, underground water pipeline was allowed to be dug up by the petitioner and Harbhajan Singh. Regarding Civil Court Judgment, it was said that an injunction was granted against the petitioner, not to disturb free flow of water through the underground pipeline. 12. We have seen the Civil Court judgment and also the site plan P-1. It is on record that during pendency of this writ petition, Sohan Singh-added respondent, had purchased property from Harbhajan Singh, which is shown in Light Green colour in P-1. He made a statement in the Civil Court that he had not blocked the street/drain. 13. 12. We have seen the Civil Court judgment and also the site plan P-1. It is on record that during pendency of this writ petition, Sohan Singh-added respondent, had purchased property from Harbhajan Singh, which is shown in Light Green colour in P-1. He made a statement in the Civil Court that he had not blocked the street/drain. 13. Before us also, a statement has been made by his counsel that the added respondent shall vacate the street upon which encroachment has been made by Harbhajan Singh, which passes through the house of the petitioner and also through the house of Harbhajan Singh (which has now purchased by the added respondent). He will make the street to join upto the street shown in Yellow colour, next to the house of the added respondent and Niranjan Singh, as shown in P-1. 14. We have heard counsel for the parties. It was rightly said by the Appellate Authority that once existence of underground pipeline is proved on record, it obviously means that the street through which pipeline was dug, was encroached upon by above said two persons. 15. We have asked the petitioner to give reasonable explanation as to why pipeline was allowed to be dug through his private property. No answer was given except saying it was very old. No man will permit to dig a pipeline for flow of dirty water of his neighbors through his house. It is proved on record that six feet wide street, having underground drain pipeline, was passing through the property of Harjinder Singh and Harbhajan Singh, which they have encroached upon. 16. In view of above mentioned facts, we dismiss this writ petition. Order passed by the Appellate Authority is confirmed and directions are issued to the BDPO to get the street cleared starting from the gate of house of Harjinder Singh then passing through the house of Harbhajan Singh, upto street shown with Yellow colour, in between the houses of Niranjan Singh and Sohan Singh in P-1. 17. Needful shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. --------0.B.S.0------------