Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasbir vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 November, 2022
LPA-1015-2022 1
115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA-1015-2022
Date of Decision : 15.11.2022
Jasbir ...... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
***
Present : Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate
for the appellant.
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J
The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the
judgment dated 17.10.2022, passed by the learned Single Bench vide which
the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
The dispute between the appellant and respondent No.5
pertains to a water course which, as per respondent No.5, was being used for
irrigating their land and the same had been demolished by appellant Jasbir
and his father Des Raj. An application dated 16.05.2019 (Annexure P-2
with the writ petition) (reference to annexures hereinafter shall refer to
annexures with the writ petition) was moved by respondent No.5 for
restoration of the same. It was the case of respondent No.5 that this water
course had been in operation for the last 40 years but had been demolished
by Des Raj and his son Jasbir. The Ziledar of the area visited the site on
02.07.2019 and gave his report on 05.07.2019 (Annexure P-3) wherein he
1 of 4
stated that water course of length 6½ karam (approximately 12 feet) had
been demolished and that fresh signs/remains of demolition were found at
the spot. On the recommendation of the Ziledar, the matter was taken up by
respondent No.4 who also inspected the site on 04.09.2020 and found the
signs/remains of the dismantled water course. He also found that irrigation
had been stopped. He ordered restoration of the water course in rect. Killa
No.12/12-19-22 eastern line for a period of six months vide order dated
08.09.2020 (Annexure P-8). The appellant filed an appeal against the said
order whereas respondent No.5 filed a cross appeal. The appellant wanted
setting aside of the said order passed by respondent No.4 whereas
respondent No.5 wanted the restoration to be made permanent.
Vide order dated 09.03.2021, the appeal of the appellant was
rejected and the cross appeal filed by respondent No.5 was allowed. It was
ordered that the water course be restored to its original condition
permanently.
A revision petition was preferred by the appellant against the
orders dated 08.09.2020 and 09.03.2021, which was also rejected by
respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order dated 12.05.2022 (Annexure
P-10).
Aggrieved by these orders, a writ petition was filed which was
dismissed leading to the filing of the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the
learned Single Bench has erred in not placing reliance upon the compromise
arrived at between the parties on 03.08.2019 which had been reduced into
writing and was produced on record as Annexure P-6. It has been submitted
that respondent No.5 and his three brothers had undertaken that they will
2 of 4
irrigate their land through the water channel which they had taken from Des
Raj and Om Parkash and that they will withdraw the case filed against
Dharambir and Om Parkash. It has also been submitted that even the
learned Single Bench did not take note of this compromise and gravely
erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Learned counsel
has contended that now the water course has been restored through the land
of the appellant without the payment of any compensation which has greatly
prejudiced his rights.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having
perused the record, we are unable to agree with the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellant. The Ziledar visited the spot on
02.07.2019 and found that the water course around 12 feet length had been
demolished. In his report Annexure P-3 (Vernacular version), the Ziledar
clearly states that on the middle line of Murabba No.12, Killa No.12 and 13
on the Northern side 6½ karam, water course had been demolished and that
signs of fresh demolition were found at the spot. He recommended its
restoration. He also produced photographs of the spot which is so
mentioned in his report. The statement of respondent No.5 which is on
record is also to this effect. In the said statement, respondent No.5 also
stated that this water course was in existence for the last 30/40 years. On
the basis of the recommendation, respondent No.4 ordered restoration for a
period of 06 months which was made permanent by respondent No.3 and
finally the matter was put at rest by respondent No.2 vide order dated
12.05.2022 (Annexure P-10). The alleged compromise dated 03.08.2019
(Annexure P-6) does not help the appellant as it talks about some suit filed
by Ishwar Singh (respondent No.5) and his brothers against Dharambir and
3 of 4
Om Parkash which is not the subject matter of the present case. The learned
Single Bench also rightly observed that assuming the compromise is relied
upon, it does admit that the water course had been provided to respondent
No.5 and from the reports of the authorities, it stands proved that the same
had been demolished. Right from the lowest officer of the Canal
Department to the highest authority, it was categorically held that there was
a water course which had been demolished by the appellant side. The
alignment also cannot be said to have been altered because the spot was
examined by the authorities wherein signs of fresh demolition were found
and restoration was ordered after examining the spot as also the record.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason, whatsoever,
to interfere in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Bench. The
present appeal, being devoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) (VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
15.11.2022
mamta
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
