DAYAL CHAND Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the learned Counsel for the parties. This case raises number of disputed facts. Firstly, it is disputed that how much land had been held by the petitioner, i. e. how much is his own and for how much he claims damages on account of land being let out to him for cultivation. It is disputed by the respondents that the land for which he claims compensation does not initially belong to him. Certain documents executed on pie-paper have been filed to evidence its letting it out to him for certain period which fact is seriously disputed by the respondents. The complainant say that the documents were executed on pie-paper and not on non-judicial stamps because they were not available. The respondent say that non-judicial papers were very much available and they have produced the certificate from the Treasury. Although it is not disputed that the canal 38 NDR was broken between Stone Nos. RD 111 and 112 but this is very much disputed that the water was not discharged from canal beyond its capacity. The sanctioned capacity is 470 cusecs whereas only 400 cusecs of water was discharged from the canal and, therefore, canal was not broken on account of excessive discharge of water. Moreover the respondent claimed that as soon as they got information they took remedial measures and controlled the discharge of the water not only by reducing it but ultimately stopping it altogether. which fact is very much disputed by the complainant.

(2.) It is alleged by the complainant that loss was assessed by the Revenue Patwari Halka under the orders of the Tehsildar, Pilibanga whereas the respondents claim that Revenue Department has no jurisdiction whatsoever to poke its nose in irrigation matters and the report of the damages was obtained ex parte without informing the Irrigation Department. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances it is a highly contested case in which number of disputed question of facts have been raised and, therefore, the appropriate Forum for deciding such disputes is a proper Civil Court where the complainant should go and file the suit for damages. However, the respondent department also cannot absolve itself of its responsibility to maintain the canal in good running condition by regularly overseeing its upkeep and repairing it because their negligence affects cultivators whose fields are situated nearby the canal where many a times on account of damage to the canal, excessive water flows in the fields which ultimately damages their crops and causes them loss of earnings. The Irrigation Department does not supply water ex-grates. It charges water charges and, therefore, it is the duty of the respondent department to maintain the canal in a suitable condition so that it may not adversely affect the interests of the nearby cultivators. With these observations the complaint is returned to the complainant for presentation to the proper Court. Ordered accordingly.