IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN T AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH v. CWP-26539-2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN T AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH GURMIT SIN IT SINGH AND ANOTHER Versus CWP-26539-2024 (O&M) M) 25 Date of decision :15.01.2025 …Petitioners UPERINTENDING ENGINEER, FER R RESOURCES DEPARTMENT PUN , FEROZEPUR CANAL CIRCLE, T PUNJAB, FEROZEPUR AND THE SUPERI WATER RES OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Judgepreet Singh Warring, A , Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Navneet Singh, Sr. D.A.G., P A.G., Punjab. HARSH BUN H BUNGER, J. [ORAL] CM-20808-20 2024 This is an application for rest ition, r restoring the main writ petition, which was d was dismissed for non-prosecution 024, ution vide order dated 22.11.2024, passed by this by this Court. For the reasons stated in the ap wed the application, the same is allowed and order da der dated 22.11.2024 passed by th by this Court is hereby recalled. lled. Main petition etition i.e. CWP-26539-2024 is ordere ginal ordered to be restored to its original number and s r and status. Registry to carry out the necessa ecessary steps accordingly. On oral request of learned couns main counsel for the petitioners, the main case i.e. CWP CWP-26539-2024 is taken up on Boa on Board today itself.
Legal Reasoning
GURPREET KAUR 2025.01.18 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 6 Page 1 of 6 CWP-26539-2024 Petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Superintending Engineer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Water Resources Department, Punjab, Ferozepur (respondent No.1); whereby, the extra supply of water to their orchard, has been withdrawn. 2. Briefly, there are Rules for Extra Supply of Canal Water for Gardens and Orchards, 1946 (in short `the 1946 Rules’). Petitioners claim that in terms of the aforesaid 1946 Rules, an agreement dated 21.08.1965 (Annexure P-2) (here-in-after referred to as `the agreement’) was executed by the State Government with one Sh. Jangir Singh S/o Sh. Gajjan Singh, for extra supply of water to his area. Petitioners claim to be the successors-in-interest of said Sh. Jangir Singh, being subsequent purchasers of the land from one Sh. Yadwinder Singh S/o Sh. Namepal Singh, who is stated to have inherited the land in question from said Jangir Singh. 2.1 It transpires that a notice dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-6) was issued to said Yadwinder Singh (the alleged predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) indicating that as per the report of the Ziledar, 2.74 acres garden stood destroyed at the spot and six months’ time was granted for planting new orchard/garden from the date of issuance of notice i.e. 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-6). It was further indicated that at the end of six months, the District Agriculture Officer, will visit the spot for verification and in case, the new orchard/garden is not planted, then the double canal water supply will be cut off/cancelled. 2.2 It appears from the vernacular copy of the Office Memo dated 11.01.2024 (Annexure P-7) that a joint inspection of the site was carried out GURPREET KAUR 2025.01.18 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 2 of 6 by the concerned Officers, who vide their letter dated 11.01.2024 (Annexure P-7) reported that the physical inspection of the orchard/garden was carried out on 21.12.2023 and it was found that there is no orchard in existence at the spot. 2.3 The Superintending Engineer (respondent No.1) vide order dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure P-9) ordered withdrawal of extra supply of water to 2.74 acres of land, comprised in Rectangle No.19, Killa No.2(8-0), 9(5-9), 12(8-0) and 3/1(0-9). 2.4 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners before this Court, for the relief/s, as noticed here-in-above. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed at the back of the petitioners, without affording them due opportunity of hearing, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. 4. 5. Heard. Petitioners claim that the impugned order is un-sustainable being violative of principles of natural justice. On first instance, the said arguments appears attractive, however, upon a closure scrutiny of the facts of the instant case, it is observed that the extra supply of water was granted to one Sh. Jangir Singh S/o Sh. Gajjan Singh. According to the petitioner, one Yadwinder Singh, was the successor-in-interest of said Sh. Jangir Singh and the petitioners claim to have purchased the afore-said land from said Yadwinder Singh. 5.1 It is noticeable that the petitioners have not placed on record any material/document in the form of Sale Deed, allegedly executed by said Yadwinder Singh and/or mutation indicating the execution of the said sale GURPREET KAUR 2025.01.18 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 3 of 6 deed in favour of the petitioners. In the absence of relevant documents/material, it cannot be considered/appreciated that the petitioners have acquired title to the land in question or that they were not afforded any opportunity of hearing. 5.2 Concededly, a notice dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-6) was in fact issued to said Yadwinder Singh and he was called upon to plant new orchard/garden within a period of six months. Upon joint inspection of the spot, the orchard was not found at the spot; accordingly, the extra supply of water was withdrawn. There is also no material available on record either in the form of khasra girdawari or any other proof to dislodge the joint inspection report dated 11.01.2024 (Annexure P -7) wherein, it has been found, as a matter of fact, that there was no orchard on the land in question. 6. At this stage, learned State counsel has appeared in pursuance to the advance copy of the petition having been served upon the State of Punjab. Learned State counsel submits that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by the impugned order, as in terms of the Rule 9 of the 1946 Rules, if the petitioners have actually acquired title to land in question then they can again apply for extra supply of water, which can be considered on its own merits. 7. I have gone through the Rule 9 of the 1946 Rules, which reads as under :- “Procedure regarding new application:- Superintending Engineer will work out every year the discharge that can be made available on every distributary for planting of gardens in accordance with rule 1 supra. He will then invite applications for extra supply for big and small gardens separately to reach him by the end of September by advertising in papers through the Public Relations Officer and also by Page 4 of 6 GURPREET KAUR 2025.01.18 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh sending notices to be posted at District and Tehsil Headquarters as also through the Panchayats of all villages concerned. These applications will then be passed on to the Fruit Specialist who will examine the suitability of the areas for which garden supply is demanded by the applicants. After the Fruit Specialist has examined the various cases himself or through the joint report of canal Deputy Collector and District Agricultural Officer he will send his recommendations to the Superintending Engineer concerned. The Superintending Engineer will then fix up a date not later than the end of December to decide as to which applications should be accepted. In case the total demand for extra supply for gardens is less than the discharge available on the distributary, all the applications recommended by the Fruit Specialist will be accepted. In case the demand as per recommendations of the Fruit Specialist is more than the supply available decision will be taken by a system of lots to be drawn by the Superintending Engineer in the aforesaid meeting in the presence of the Fruit Specialist and of the applicants who may choose to be present. After this the Superintending Engineer will straight away proceed to sanction supplies in various outlets concerned and make sure that the adjustment of outlets are completed in all cases during the following month of April. The applications for extra supply for gardens already existing will be sorted out and a lottery drawn among such of those applications whose gardens have been verified by the Fruit Specialist as genuine. If any supply is left over after meeting the demand for existing gardens, a second lottery for applications for supply of newly proposed gardens will be drawn. [Inserted by GURPREET KAUR 2025.01.18 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 5 of 6 Addendum & Corrigendum No.1, dated 20th April, 1960 vide case No.145/20.]” 7.1 A perusal of the above extracted Rule, would clearly indicate that new applications for seeking supply of extra water under the 1946 Rules, are to be sought by the Superintending Engineer by the end of September of every year by issuing advertisement in papers and other modes as indicated in the afore-said Rules and after complying with the procedural requirements, the applications are to be recommended by the Fruit Specialists and considering the discharge available on the distributory, all the applications received are either accepted in totality or by a system of lots. 7.2 Therefore, if the petitioners have acquired title to land in question then they would be well within their rights to apply afresh for seeking extra supply of water under the 1946 Rules after fulfilling the necessary requirements envisaged thereunder. 8. Keeping in view the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the concerned authority with requisite proof of their title and to apply afresh to seek extra supply of water to their orchards/gardens, under the 1946 Rules. In case, any such application is submitted by the petitioners, the same shall be considered on its merits, in accordance with law. 9. All pending applications (if any) shall also stand closed. January 15, 2025 gurpreet (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2025.01.18 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 6 of 6