Harbant Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—This order shall dispose of five Civil Writ Petitions i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 584 of 2011(Harbant Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Ors.), Civil Writ Petition No. 3779 of 2011 (Lakhwinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Ors.), Civil Writ Petition No. 5785 of 2011(Joginder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Ors.), Civil Writ Petition No. 1356 of 2011(Khushal Chand & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Ors.), CWP No. 5813 of 2011 (Gursahib Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Ors.). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 584 of 2011. The petitioners in these petitions are shareholders of outlet No. 133252-L which is under Malookpur Distributory. The petitioners are agriculturists and they own land in Hadbast of village Patti Billa, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur. Earlier residents of village Usman Khera had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 8233 of 2008 titled as Manohar Lal and others vs. State of Punjab and others before this Court. Their grievance was that their land lies at the tail and so they are not getting water to the tune of 10 cusecs. They, accordingly, prayed that a direction be issued to the authorities to provide them water as per their entitlement. This writ petition was disposed of on 5.3.2009 by noticing the contentions and with the direction to hear the parties concerned and pass an order keeping in view the benefits of persons concerned. The order in this regard reads as under:-

In its order dated 31.10.2008, the Division Bench of this Court recorded the statement of P.S. Bhogal, Superintending Engineer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur, who was present in Court. The issue involved was repair, re-modelling and upgradation of Malookpura distributory system. An affidavit dated 24.09.2008 was filed indicating that the funds have been allocated, inter alia, for repair of the Malookpura Distributory System. Superintending Engineer, however, pointed out that on account of constraint of resources, no money had been released for the same. The case was adjourned with the direction Superintending Engineer to furnish the priority list of executing such works on irrigation project in the State of Punjab. That affidavit has also been filed.

State counsel on instructions from Gurmeet Singh, SDO, who is present in court informs that project has been sanctioned, funds allocated and the work commenced. Mr. Khurana, Advocate appearing for the petitioners points out that there is some difficulty in undertaking the project. His grievance is that the local persons are not associated for the work which is not in fact remodelling but a repair only. He would also submit that in fact the persons or the tenants should also be associated, so that entire population depending on this distributory is benefited. It is expected from the functionary of the State to take into consideration the interest of all.

The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

The petitioners subsequently approached this Court when they were not being heard. While considering the issue, this Court then directed respondent No. 2 to consider the representation (Annexure P-5) by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Respondent officials have now passed the impugned order reducing size of outlet.

The grievance now is that the petitioners would suffer loss on account of reduction of size of the outlet. The State counsel would rebut the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. As per the reply, there is no likelihood of any loss even after the reduction of the size of the outlet as Hydraulic pressure has been increased by 20% and thus the decrease in the size of outlet is not likely to cause loss to any shareholder.

Counsel for the petitioners, however, would dispute this fact. Since this factual issue is in dispute, it may not be appropriate to decide the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, still the case can be remanded back to the Superintending Engineer to consider if there is any likelihood of loss due to reduction in size of outlet. If the petitioners are able to show that they will suffer any loss then the Superintending Engineer would be at liberty to consider their plea and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. If on the other hand, petitioners are not able to establish that they would suffer any loss on account of this, the Superintending Engineer would be at liberty to maintain the impugned order.

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Superintending Engineer on 25.09.2012. The present status quo shall be maintained till 25.09.2012. Thereafter, it would be for the Superintending Engineer concern to pass any appropriate order.