The State of Haryana and Another vs Raghuvinder Kumar Jain

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 13.04.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind. Decree holder - respondent filed a suit for restraining the judgment debtors - petitioners from storing/collecting any sewage and drainage water on both the sides of Railway line from Jind City to Panipat-Safidon Railway line near Jind Minor/Rajbaha as shown in the site plan. The suit was decreed in favour of the decree-holder/respondent vide judgment and decree dated 27.05.1996 on the basis of undertaking by the department/Judgment Debtor that the department of Public Health, Jind would make best efforts to stop storing of sewage water in the portion ABCD as shown in the site plan within two years from the date of decision. It was also mentioned that if the storing of sewerage water was not stopped within the stipulated period then the department would pay Rs. 6200/- per acre per year as damages for the suit land measuring 31 kanals 13 marlas to the decree holder amounting to Rs. 24,529/- on or before 15.06.1998 and subsequently, every year on or before 15th June in advance till total storage of sewage water in the aforesaid land is stopped.

Learned State counsel referred to the statement (Annexure A/1) that the sewerage water was stopped to be discharged in the borrow pits of Railways on 19.04.2002, but it was specifically mentioned in the statement that it was VIP area, on 15.05.2003 the water was again discharged in the borrow pits of Government land of Railways in the forced circumstances, so that VIP area and Jind City both may not accumulate sewerage water. This water is 500 ft. away from the field of the respondent.

The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was no permanent stoppage of discharge of sewerage water in the borrow pits and there is violation of the undertaking. The Court has specifically mentioned that the Local Commissioner was appointed to identify the existing state of affairs, but the fee of the Local Commissioner was deposited by the judgment debtor after a period of three months. This conduct of the judgment debtor shows that in fact upto 31.01.2004, there was no permanent stoppage of discharge of sewerage water in the borrow pits. The distance of 500 feet was found to be not acceptable.

Perusal of the impugned order as well as statement (Annexure A/1) shows that this is VIP area and judgment debtors are not taking proper measure to stop the discharge of sewerage water, rather they have themselves admitted that the discharge was there on 15.05.2007 though due to the compelling circumstances. Apparently it appears that it was under the pressure of VIPs, so the petitioners are liable to pay the damages.

In view of this, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Dismissed.