C.O.C.P.No.563 Of 2008 vs S.K.Ashri on 18 September, 2009

C.O.C.P.No.563 of 2008                                                 1


    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.


                                             1. C.O.C.P.No.563 of 2008


Nawal Singh                                            ...Petitioner

                                    Versus

S.K.Ashri, Superintending Engineer and others
                                                       ...Respondents

2. C.O.C.P.No.1038 of 2009

Bhale Ram …Petitioner

Versus

D.D.Gupta, Superintending Engineer and others
…Respondents

Date of Decision:-September 18,2009

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

Present: Mr.Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral):

This judgment of mine shall dispose of two petitions i.e.

COCP Nos.563 of 2008 and 1038 of 2009, which have been filed

alleging disobedience of the order dated 8.2.2007 passed by this

Court in CWP No.8322 of 2006.

As per the averments made in these petitions, Bhale Ram

(petitioner in COCP No.1038 of 2009) filed CWP No.8322 of 2006

against the State of Haryana and Nawal Singh (petitioner in COCP
C.O.C.P.No.563 of 2008 2

No.563 of 2008) for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari

quashing the orders dated 2.3.2001, 21.11.2001 and 31.12.2002

passed by the Canal Authorities and letter dated 2.5.2006 whereby

Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Dulhera Water Services Sub Division,

Rohtak had directed the Ziledar, Sampla to demolish the house of

Bhale Ram in order to dig a watercourse in compliance of the

aforesaid orders passed by the Canal Authorities. The aforesaid writ

petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 8.2.2007 by this Court

in the following terms:-

“This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash

the orders passed by the canal authorities dated March

02,2001, November 21,2001 and December 31,2002,

vide which water course was sanctioned in favour of

respondent No.6.

It is primary grievance of the petitioner that to dig out

water-course, now sanctioned, his house will have to be

demolished. Mr.Sehrawat has placed on record

photographs to show that the water-course will be dug

beyond the boundary wall of the house of the petitioner

and house of the petitioner will not be demolished, as

alleged. Photographs are taken on record as Exhibit A-1

and Exhibit A-2.

In view of categoric stand taken by counsel for

respondent No.6, we feel that no case is made out for

interference. This writ petition stands disposed of. The

respondents are directed to dig up the water-course,
C.O.C.P.No.563 of 2008 3

without causing any damage to the house of the

petitioner.”

In COCP No.1038 of 2009, the grievance of petitioner

Bhale Ram is that the respondent-authorities while digging the water

course in front of his house have avoided immediate demolition of

any part of the house by narrowing down the size of the watercourse

but ignored the overflow and seepage of water keeping in view the

quantity of water discharged in the watercourse from the outlet and

the size of the watercourse being below the specifications as also

the proximity of the watercourse to the house damage to the house

of petitioner is bound to be caused and, thus, the respondents have

committed the contempt of this Court as order dated 8.2.2007 of this

Court has not been complied with in letter and spirit.

On the other hand, the stand of Nawal Singh (petitioner in

COCP No.563 of 2008 and respondent No.5 in CWP No.8322 of

2006) is that watercourse has not been dug up by the respondent-

authorities as per the order of this Court in collusion with Bhale Ram

and thus, the respondents are guilty of committing contempt of this

Court.

Replies have been filed in both the contempt petitions by

the respondent-authorities wherein it has been submitted that the

watercourse was constructed as per design and specification and

was brick lined in front of house of the petitioner and while doing so,

the house of Bhale Ram was not damaged. It has been further

submitted that the aforesaid watercourse was sanctioned for Nawal

Singh and is to be maintained by him to avoid any damage to the
C.O.C.P.No.563 of 2008 4

house of Bhale Ram and, therefore, there is no disobedience to the

order passed by this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

records of both the cases and have also seen the photographs

placed on record.

There is no merit in the contention raised by the counsel

for Nawal Singh (petitioner in COCP No.563 of 2008) that

watercourse in question has not been dug up in accordance with the

order passed by this Court. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner

was unable to point out as to how the watercourse in question was

not constructed as per the order of this Court.

Similarly, learned counsel for petitioner Bhale Ram (in

COCP No.1038 of 2009) was unable to show as to how the

respondents have violated the order passed by this Court in CWP

No.8322 of 2006. In fact, in his pleadings, petitioner Bhale Ram has

admitted that no damage has been caused to his house while

constructing/digging up the watercourse in question. However, his

contention is that due to overflow, seepage and discharge of water,

the house of petitioner Bhale Ram is likely to be damaged.

There is nothing on record to support the aforesaid plea

of the petitioner. I find no merit in COCP No.1038 of 2009 also. Thus,

both these contempt petitions, which are devoid of any merit, are

hereby dismissed.

                                              (Rakesh Kumar Garg)
September 18,2009                                     Judge
AS