Kartar Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—Kartar Singh [respondent no. 4 in CWP No. 203 of 2011 filed by Raghbir Singh (respondent No. 4 in this appeal) has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 12.1.2012 passed by the learned single judge, whereby the aforesaid writ petition filed by respondent No. 4 has been allowed and the order dated 4.6.2001 (Annexure P-2) passed by the State Government granting sanction to the exchange of land between the appellant and respondent No. 2-Municipal Committee, Rania, District Sirsa has been set aside. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge as well as the order dated 4.6.2001 passed by the State Government.

In this case, there was a water course in Khasra No. 700/1, the total land of which was measuring 2 Kanals 15 Marlas, situated within the revenue limits of Rania and owned by respondent No. 2-Municipal Committee. The said water course passed through Raqba No. 150, Killa No. 2/1, 2/2, 8, 9, 13/1, 13/2, 17 and 24/2. It was carved out during the consolidation and was being used to irrigate the fields of respondent No. 4 and other co-sharers.

It is the case of the appellant that on his application for exchange of land with his land, so that a different water course can be provided, the State Government vide order dated 4.6.2001 granted sanction for the said exchange. After a long time, the said order was challenged by respondent No. 4 in this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in law while allowing the said writ petition and setting aside the order dated 4.6.2001 at a belated stage.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any illegality in the impunged order. It has been found as a fact that not only the order dated 4.6.2001 was vague, as no khasra number was mentioned therein, but the said sanction order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other co-sharers, whose land was also being irrigated by the water course in question. Even before us, it has not been disputed that before the sanction order, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the persons, who were going to be effected by the alleged exchange. This is one aspect of the matter.

It appears that the sole object of the alleged exchange was to take possession of the land underneath the water course, which might be bifurcating the land of the appellant to some extent, and to provide a new water course on the boundary line of his land. But one thing is clear that if the water course is so changed by the alleged exchange then it is certainly going to effect the rights of many persons, whose land is being irrigated by the existing water course. Secondly, we are of the opinion that the Government should not become a party to such an exchange, the purpose of which is to remove a water course and create a new one. Such kind of water courses are being regulated by the provisions of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974. Under this Act, procedure to change the existing water course has been provided and powers for the same have been given to the canal authorities. The appellant has not proceeded under the said act Thus, in our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that with an object to grab the land, underneath the water course, which was being used by a large number of persons, the appellant got exchanged his land with respondent No. 2 Municipal Committee in a clandestine manner. In such a situation, this court in exercise of the inherent powers is fully justified to interfere with the impugned order at a belated stage. Thus, we do not filed any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the Chandigarh Legal Services Authority.