Gurdip Singh v. Superintending Engineer And ORS

CWP No.26772 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.26772 of 2016 Date of Decision.19.01.2017 Gurdip Singh ........Petitioner Vs Superintending Engineer and others ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL -.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order (Annexure P3) whereby the Superintending Engineer, Canals has remanded the matter back to the Divisional Canal Officer on the premise that Jagdev Singh at whose instance the appeal has been filed, no effective service made upon him and the inspection was also done at his back. Mr. Sandeep Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Divisional Canal Officer did not pass the order in a hush-hush manner. Many opportunities had been given i.e. on 06.01.2016, 02.03.2016 and 06.04.2016. Even Ziledar also reported regarding effecting of the service. Intimation on the mobile number of the affected parties i.e. the private respondents was also given. Despite having the knowledge of the proceedings, they did not appear. They wanted to prolong the matter and intention was to cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioner.

All these factors have not been taken into consideration. Even the file of the Divisional Canal Officer was not perused which recorded the status of service.

PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.01.24 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.26772 of 2016 -2I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, appraised the paper book and of the view that the finding rendered by the Superintending Engineer, Canals is perfectly legal and justified. The principles of natural justice have not been applied. The Divisional Canal Officer has not recorded any satisfaction with regard to the service upon the private respondent. The demarcation (Annexure P-4) is also done at the back of the respondents, thus, the order of restoration of water course seriously prejudiced the right and interest of respondents. In the absence of the application of principles of natural justice, the matter has been remanded back.

Though there is no time line fixed for adjudication of the lis, I deem it appropriate to modify the order viz-a-viz fixing the time line. The Divisional Canal Officer, who has been asked to decide the case afresh, shall decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The finding rendered by the Superintending Engineer, Canals is upheld but with the aforementioned modification.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE January 19, 2017 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.01.24 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document