Jagtar Singh & Anr. vs Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala & Ors.

“xxx xxx During the hearing appellants and opposite parties were come present in court and got recorded their statement. On careful consideration of record during the arguments it came on record the deputy collector Mansa at the time of passing the decision considered the rule first come first serve but the length of watercourse were not considered. The area of defendant is situated at the branch of sanctioned watercourse and the tale is of 1635 Yard while the area of appellants is situated at the branch of Kacha Watercourse and the tale is 1800 Yard. Thus, after considering the entire above facts this court reached at the conclusion that the appeal is accepted and the case was remanded back to deputy collector Mansa with the directions that decision may kindly be passed after considering the length of watercourses.”

“xx xx It came on record belongs to this case that the defendant party by his application demanded tail as per Warrabandi on the ground of first come first serve. As per the site plan of the spot the land of appellant party is at point A-B of sanctioned water course and B-C of unsanctioned (Kacha Khal) while the land of defendant party is at Point D-E of sanctioned watercourse. As per the earlier sanctioned Warrabandi the tail belongs to appellant party and during the arguments his Advocate argued that he has right of tail due to length of watercourse. As per the site plan the land of defendant is at sanctioned watercourse tail of which is approximate 1635 yard while land of appellant party is at sanctioned/Unsanctioned watercourse tail of which is about 1800 yard but there is a syphon at point A under the melted road ahead of water course belongs to defendant from which the branch of sanctioned watercourse points A-B And branch of unsanctioned watercourse from point B-C is working. It appears from it as per the flow of canal water the water is required to run from branch of appellant party first and thereafter, the water is required to run from branch of watercourse of defendant on bases of which the tail is required to given to defendant party instead of appellant. As per above circumstances it is not appropriate to give tail to area of appellant only on bases of length of watercourse because Warrabandi of any outlet is prepared keeping in view the principle of first come first serve. The length of watercourses of this case is not affect the Warrabandi prepared on the principle of first come first serve. Therefore, the decision dated 27.07.2023 passed by Divisional Canal officer is upheld being passed on totally in view of principle first come first serve as per Warrabandi and the appeal of appellate is hereby rejected.”