BISHAN DASS Vs. TEHSILDAR SAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition for quashing the order of respondent 1 dated 6 -1 -64 whereby respondent 1 has ordered that "the water -course should be allowed through Khasra No. 561 instead of 644".

(2.) THE allegations of the petitioner are that the petitioner owns land comprising khasra No. 561. The petitioner constructed a pardah wall on his own land and raised other constructions for his residence. Respondent 2 moved the Tehsildar under the Common Lands Regulation Ace who without any jurisdiction passed an order against the petitioner directing him not to interefer with the flow of water over the land He preferred an appeal before the Dy. Commr, but the Asstt. Commr. to whom the appeal was transferred dismissed the appeal as time barred Now he has moved this court by means of a writ. According to the petitioner the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The impugned order contravenes the provisions of Art. 19 of the Constitution.

(3.) THIS petition has been resisted by the respondents. 4 I have perused the order of the Tehsildar. From the allegations made by either side before the Tehsildar, it appears that the land under Khasra No. 561 belongs to the petitioner. According to Bishwa Nath the water from his land would be drained out through the plot of land belonging to the petitioner. Even the Tehsildar has admitted that the land over which the water flows belongs to the petitioner. The Common Lands Regulation Act is enacted to secure the use of certain common properties in a village by all the inhabitants of the village without let or hindrance on the part of any other person. It was never intended to regulate disputes between private individuals regarding their private properties. If according to respondent 2 water from his land was drained out through the land belonging to the petitioner, it was at best a case of easement and for that the remedy of respondent 2 was by means of a civil suit.