Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 982 (PNJ)

Kashmir Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer

2017-04-20

MAHESH GROVER, SHEKHER DHAWAN

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Mahesh Grover, J. (Oral) - C.M.No.1242-LPA of 2017 C.M. is allowed. Annexures A-1 and A-2 are taken on record. C.M.No.362-LPA of 2017 Marginal delay of 9 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M.stands allowed. C.M.No.363-LPA of 2017 Allowed as prayed for. LPA No.176 of 2017 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.12.2016. 3. The respondents moved an application before the canal authorities seeking restoration of the watercourse which was allegedly demolished by the appellant, which prayer was accepted, and aggrieved against the order of the canal authorities the present appellant resorted to an ill-conceived remedy of filing a civil suit which lingered on for six long years with an injunction in his favour. Eventually, the civil suit was partially accepted where injunction was granted but the impugned order of the canal authority was not set aside for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant then preferred a Civil Writ Petition against the order of the canal authorities of which he was aggrieved, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge primarily on the ground that the arrangement granted by the canal authorities by restoring the demolished water course has been in existence for the last six years and the appellant was unable to point out any prejudice to the arrangement offered by the impugned order of the canal authorities. Besides this, the delay of six years in approaching the court was also adversely commented upon and the explanation offered by the appellant of filing a civil suit against the order of the canal authorities was not appreciated. 4. Before us learned counsel for the appellant while impugning the order of the learned Single Judge contends likewise but is unable to offer any insight to the prejudice that he suffers if the orders of the canal authorities are executed to restore the demolished water course. Nothing has been shown to us to enable us to conclude about the illegality or perversity of the orders of the canal authorities. The site plan placed on record clearly suggests a demolished water course. If that is so, then all the factors that have been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge to decline interference would be an equally good reason to decline interference in the impugned order in the absence of there being any perversity or illegality in the same. 5. If that is so, then all the factors that have been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge to decline interference would be an equally good reason to decline interference in the impugned order in the absence of there being any perversity or illegality in the same. 5. No ground to interfere. 6. Dismissed.