NIHAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the orders of the Superintending Engineer dated December 31, 1975, withdrawing the enhanced supply of water to the garden said to be owned by Darya Singh. The petitioner complains that the land originally belonged to the joint family consisting of himself, Darya Singh and others, but in a partition effected in the year 1974, the land covered by the garden fell to the exclusive share of the petitioner. Mutation was effected and in the Jamabandi for the year 1974-75 the petitioner was shown as owner of the land. The petitioner complains that the requisite notice for withdrawal of water supply was not issued to him before the Superintending Engineer made the impugned order.

(2.) The answer of the respondents is that they are not aware of the partition as they were never informed of the same. The entries in the Jamabandi clearly show that the garden now stands in the name of the petitioner as a result of partition. In the application filed by the petitioner, to which there is no answer, the petitioner has categorically alleged that irrigation charges were being assessed on him and collected from him since 1974.

(3.) We think that the petitioner was entitled to notice before the withdrawal of enhanced water supply. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed. It will be open to the respondents to take further action in the matter, if so advised, after issuing proper notice to the petitioner in accordance with law.