RAM CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of aforementioned two writ petitions. One is CWP No.19463 of 2007 filed by Rati Ram and another represented by Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate challenging the orders dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure P-8), 21.12.2006 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and 01.06.2006 (Annexure P-5) of respondent No.3, whereas new water course according to Mr. Gupta, without following procedure prescribed under Sec. 18 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, has been provided. In the other writ petition bearing CWP No.11338 of 2012 titled as Ram Chander and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, prayer is for quashing the impugned orders dated 10.04.2006 (Annexure P-4) of respondent No.3 and 29.01.2006 (Annexure P-2) of respondent No.4 and with a further direction for implementation of the orders dated 16.10.2007, 21.12.2006 and 01.06.2006 passed by the Competent Canal Authorities.

(2.) The gamut of the discord between both the petitioner(s) and the respondent(s) represented by Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate in CWP No.19463 of 2007 is with regard to the water course bifurcated from the outlet RD- 141000/L to outlet RD 139150/L. It is conceded position on record that bifurcation of both the outlets is not in dispute.

(3.) Grievance of the client of Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate is that as per the site plan (Annexure P-2), the water course shown as ABC and B to E have been allegedly dismantled by the respondents and, therefore, in this regard application for restoration of the same was moved but same was allowed on the basis of the report and as well as by the inspection. The order aforementioned has attained finality but however vide Annexure P-8 on the application of the private respondent, new water course shown in the site plan (Annexure P-6) as ABCDEFG for which a new water course from the outlet RD141000L, has been provided.