IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No.666 of 2009
Date of decision: 8.10.2009
Surinder ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Ishwar Singh ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Surender Sheoran, Advocate for the respondent.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
As per the averments made in this petition, there was a
dispute between the parties with regard to irrigation of fields from the
watercourse. The orders dated 2.12.2006 and 8.1.2007 passed by the
Authorities under the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act were challenged by
the respondent by filing CWP No.882 of 2007. The aforesaid writ
petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2007 on the
basis of an agreement between the parties wherein the petitioner agreed
to give up his claim qua the water course ‘ABCD’ and respondent agreed to
allow the petitioner to irrigate his land from watercourse ‘JGH’.
Consequently, the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar, was
modified accordingly.
It is the further case of the petitioner that he has honoured his
part of the agreement by leaving his claim to irrigate his land from
watercourse ‘ABCD’. However, the respondent has refused to honour his
promise and is creating obstacles in the execution of the lining work of
watercourse ‘JGH’ and the respondent has played a fraud with this Court
by making a false statement and thus, has committed contempt of this
Court.
In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court,
reply by way of affidavit on behalf of the respondent has been filed
wherein it has been submitted that there is no obstacle on behalf of the
respondent and the petitioner is irrigating his fields through watercourse
‘JGH’ as agreed upon. However, the petitioner has filed an application for
lining of watercourse ‘JGH’ by filing a false affidavit dated 8.5.2008 on
behalf of the respondent and there was no order of the lining of
watercourse by this Court and on the basis of the aforesaid false affidavit,
the Canal Authorities have passed an order dated 9.6.2008 for lining of
watercourse ‘JGH’. The respondent came to know about this fact when the
Authorities started taking measurement for lining of watercourse ‘JGH’.
Thereafter, the respondent filed objections. It has also been mentioned in
his written statement that an FIR No.36 dated 16.3.2009 has been
registered against the petitioner for giving false affidavit on behalf of the
respondent and thus, it was stated that in view of the aforesaid facts, no
contempt is made out against the respondent.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of this petition.
Vide order dated 12.11.2007, this Court has only modified the
order passed by the Canal Authorities on the basis of an agreement
reached between the parties. Moreover, in the written statement, a
specific stand has been taken by the respondent that there is no obstacle
on his part qua the petitioner to irrigate his land through watercourse ‘JGH’.
In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent, it
cannot be made out that the respondent has violated the order passed by
this Court. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is not being allowed to
irrigate his land through water-course ‘JGH’ rather his case is that
respondent is creating obstacles in brick-lining of water-course ‘JGH’ by the
Canal Authorities. As to whether the respondent could object to the brick-
lining of watercourse ‘JGH’ or not, is a separate question as the brick-
lining of the aforesaid watercourse is to be done by the CADA Authorities in
accordance with law.
Thus, in view of the specific stand taken by the respondent
that he is not obstructing the petitioner from irrigating his land through
watercourse ‘JGH’, I find no merit in this petition.
Dismissed.
Rule discharged .
October 8, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE