ROOP SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and respondent No.2 are in dispute about the use of water course in outlet No.RD/50000-L and the water course RD No.44914. The petitioner had earlier preferred an application to the Deputy Collector that he be allowed to outlet No.RD/50000-L in Doda Minor as he had purchased land and for use of water course outlet No.RD/50000-L. The petitioner stated that he does not want any action and his case may be consigned to the office/record room. Thereafter, the Deputy Collector consigned the matter to the record room. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, who was the affected person and whose statement was also recorded by the Deputy Collector and he submitted that the application of petitioner Roop Singh, may not be filed as area of Roop Singh is on outlet No.50,000L and he wants to get his turn of water (warabandi) sanctioned at outlet No.44914-R. However, the Deputy Collector rejected the case. Section 68(3) of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. Gurmeet Singh (respondent No.2) then filed appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, who vide order dated 14.07.1994 rejected the appeal by holding that the plea of Gurmeet Singh that the outlet No.44914-R and irrigation of his area cannot be accepted as he contends to irrigate his area from the water course of another outlet which is not permissible under the Rules. It was further held that the appellant/Gurmeet Singh should irrigate his area by constructing a syphon at Point 73 M/14-18 at his own expenses.

(2.) Respondent No.2 Gurmeet Singh thereafter preferred an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer vide his order dated 28.02.1995 allowed the appeal by holding as under:-

(3.) The order dated 28.02.1995 has been assailed in the instant writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner had also preferred a civil suit praying for permanent injunction against Rai Singh and Gurmeet Singh (respondent No.2) restraining the defendants from demolishing the water course. Vide order dated 24.01.1995 (Annexure R2/2), the Civil Court dismissed the suit .