Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1435 (PNJ)

Tek Singh v. SCO Patiala

2014-10-16

DEEPAK SIBAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Deepak Sibal, J.: - The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 is regarding the turn of water for irrigation of their respective fields. According to respondent No.4, he is owner in possession of 9 ½ killas of land in Rect. No. 242/1 in village Dinghar, Mansa. He says that this land was earlier owned by the petitioner and he became the owner of this land as per the oral exchange dated 14.04.1991. As per the oral exchange, the land was mutated in favour of respondent No.4 on 22.04.1991. Respondent No.4 further says that he is in continuous possession of the said land since then. In the year 2009, respondent No.4 made an application to the Deputy Collector, Mansa Division, stating therein that his turn of water is fixed at Khata No.242/1 but the tail has been wrongly be given to Khata No.243/2 i.e. the land of the petitioner. He submitted that his land is adjoining the tail, so his turn be kept at Khata no.243/1, in the middle Nakka of 5/181-9 and same be declared as the water tail. The Deputy Collector issued notice to the petitioner and after hearing both the parties vide order dated 05.08.2009 accepted the claim made by respondent No.4 by passing the following order:- “Both the parties are heard. The demand raised by the applicant that his turn is kept from Khata No.242/1 but the tail is made at Khata No.243/2, the same has wrongly been given. Our land is in the end, so our turn be kept at Khata No.243/1 and the nakka for receiving the water shall be given in the middle of 5/18-19 and for giving be made in the head water course. The turn of Khata No.243/2 shall be kept at Khata No.242/2 and the receiving of water shall be kept at Khal turned at 5/6-15 and the giving of same be kept at 5/25/2, 12/1. Against this the concerned co-sharers stated that their turns shall not be disturbed and are correct as are going on. On 22.06.2009 the spot was inspected. As per spot inspection the demand of applicant is genuine and the demand of applicant is hereby accepted. The order is hereby sent to Ziledar Mansa order pronounced.” 2. Against this the concerned co-sharers stated that their turns shall not be disturbed and are correct as are going on. On 22.06.2009 the spot was inspected. As per spot inspection the demand of applicant is genuine and the demand of applicant is hereby accepted. The order is hereby sent to Ziledar Mansa order pronounced.” 2. The petitioner filed an appeal against the above order before the Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa, who allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner be passing the following order:- “After taking into consideration above mentioned aspects this court has come to conclusion that the contention raised by Sh. Tek Singh s/o Sucha Singh is genuine and acceptable because his land is situated at the end whereas the area and Khal of opposite party. Sh. Amrik Singh is situated prior to them so the demand of opposite party is not genuine and and not acceptable. The appeal of Sh. Tek Chand s/o Sucha Singh appellant is accepted after considering his contentions to be genuine. The order passed by Deputy Collect, Mansa Division I.B. Jawaharke dated 05.08.2009 is set aside. This order is passed under Section 68(5) Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. The order is announced.” 3. The above order was again appealed against this time by respondent No.4, before the Superintending Canal Officer, I.B. Circle, Patiala. The Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala vide order dated 03.06.2010 allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.4 primarily on the ground that the Deputy Collector, Mansa Division had passed the order after having visited the spot and therefore, his order was restored and affirmed. 4. The order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala, has been challenged through present writ petition by the petitioner before this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their valuable assistance and gone through the record of the case. 6. Respondent No.4 had admittedly become owner of the land under his possession way back in the year 1991. For 18 years, he was apparently satisfied with the irrigation arrangements because the application moved by him in the present case, for the first time, for change in the irrigation arrangements before the Deputy Collector, Mansa Division, was made only in the year 2009. If for 18 years, he had irrigated his land as per the present arrangement, it can safely be presumed that he was satisfied with the same. If for 18 years, he had irrigated his land as per the present arrangement, it can safely be presumed that he was satisfied with the same. Admittedly, there was no change in the water arrangement in the year 2009. It continued to be the same as it was for the past at least 18 years. In case, this arrangement was not to its satisfaction he would have immediately, on taking possession of the land in question in the year 1991, or soon thereafter sought for change in the irrigation arrangements. Still further, the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Mansa Division and the Superintending Canal Officer, I.B. Circle, Patiala, spell out no reasons to change or modify the irrigation arrangements in place for the last at least 18 years prior to the application moved by respondent No.4. The decision in favour of respondent No.4 is primarily on the basis of a spot inspection by the Deputy Collector, Mansa Division. Neither is there any spot inspection report on the record nor any reasons have been given by the Deputy Collector, Mansa Division, so as to what he saw when he went for spot inspection which made him tilt his decision in favour of respondent No.4. The order is absolutely vague. The Superintending Canal Officer, I.B. Circle, Patiala, has simply stamped his approval on the vague and non-specific order passed by the Deputy Collector, Mansa Division, without giving any independent reasons of his own. In my opinion, on these grounds also the orders impugned by the petitioner deserve to be set aside. 7. I have also gone through the site plan placed on the record and after going through the irrigation channels in the site plan, I am satisfied that the present irrigation arrangements supply adequate water to both the parties. A perusal of the site plan shows that, in fact, it is respondent No.4 whose land are getting the water prior to the water reaching the fields of the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, the impugned orders (Annexures P-1 & P-3) are set aside and the writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————