{"id":199790,"date":"2009-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009"},"modified":"2016-04-15T23:34:14","modified_gmt":"2016-04-15T18:04:14","slug":"suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Suresh Kumar vs The Chief Canal Officer\/L.W.S.U. on 29 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Suresh Kumar vs The Chief Canal Officer\/L.W.S.U. on 29 October, 2009<\/div>\n
           In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n                                    ......\n\n\n                         C.W.P. No.14458 of 2008\n                                   .....\n\n                                                Date of decision:29.10.2009\n\n\n                               Suresh Kumar\n                                                               .....Petitioner\n                                     v.\n\n The Chief Canal Officer\/L.W.S.U., Irrigation Department, Panchkula and\n                                others\n                                                          .....Respondents\n                                  ....\n\n\nPresent:     Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.\n\n             Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana\n             for respondents No.1 to 3.\n\n             Mr. S.N. Pilani, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 6.\n\n             None for respondent No.7 (ex parte vide order dated\n             27.11.2008).\n                                   .....\n\nS.S. Saron, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             This petition under Articles 226\/227 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
India has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 29.1.2008<\/p>\n
(Annexure-P.8) passed by the Chief Canal Officer, Panchkula (respondent<\/p>\n
No.1) whereby the order dated 12.7.2007 (Annexure-P.7) passed by the<\/p>\n
Superintending Canal Officer, Y.W.S. Circle, Rohtak (respondent No.2) has<\/p>\n
been set aside.\n<\/p>\n
             Pardeep Kumar (respondent No.7) filed an application<\/p>\n
(Annexure-P.1) on 19.6.2003 before the Divisional Canal Officer, Rohtak<\/p>\n
(respondent No.3) for sanction of water course A-B as depicted in the site<\/p>\n
plan (Annexure-P.9) on compensation basis in the `Chak’ of outlet RD
\n                                                   C.W.P. No.14458 of 2008
\n                                    [2]<\/p>\n
No.10650-L Madina Minor, Village Bahu Akbarpur, Tehsil and District<\/p>\n
Rohtak from the land comprised in rectangle No.38, Khasra No.24, 25\/1 and<\/p>\n
25\/2. It was claimed by Pardeep Kumar (respondent No.7) that the said<\/p>\n
water course A-B is suitable for the irrigation of his fields and he was also<\/p>\n
utilizing this water course for the last 50 years. The Divisional Canal<\/p>\n
Officer, Rohtak (respondent No.3) on 10.2.2004 recorded the statement<\/p>\n
(Annexure-P.2) of Pardeep Kumar (respondent No.7) wherein he reiterated<\/p>\n
his prayer for sanction of water course from the aforesaid land. The land<\/p>\n
comprised in rectangle No.38, Khasra Nos.24 and 25\/1 is owned by Ram<\/p>\n
Mehar and Ram Bhagat (respondents No.4 and 5) and land comprised in<\/p>\n
rectangle No.38, Khasra No.25\/2 is owned by Smt. Rasalo daughter of<\/p>\n
Ramji Lal.    The petitioner Suresh Kumar is a co-sharer in the land<\/p>\n
comprised in rectangle No.38, Khasra No.25\/2.           The case was got<\/p>\n
investigated from the Ziledar, who reported the matter to the Sub Divisional<\/p>\n
Canal Officer, Rohtak. The Ziledar and the Sub Divisional Canal Officer,<\/p>\n
Rohtak after inspection of the spot vide recommendations (Annexures-P.3<\/p>\n
and P.4) recommended the case of Pardeep Kumar (respondent No.7) for<\/p>\n
sanctioning the water course A-B from land comprised in rectangle No.38,<\/p>\n
Khasra No.24, 25\/1 and 25\/2. The Divisional Canal Officer (respondent<\/p>\n
No.3) after going through the spot inspection report sanctioned the water<\/p>\n
course A-B in the `Chak’ of outlet No.RD-10650-L Madina Minor of<\/p>\n
Village Bahu Akbarpur vide order dated 28.3.2005.              Ram Mehar<\/p>\n
(respondent No.4) and others aggrieved against the said order dated<\/p>\n
28.3.2005 of the Divisional Canal Officer filed an appeal before the<\/p>\n
Superintending Canal Officer who vide order dated 26.11.2006 remanded
\n                                                   C.W.P. No.14458 of 2008
\n                                     [3]<\/p>\n
the case for fresh decision.      On remand, the Divisional Canal Officer<\/p>\n
(respondent No.3) sanctioned the water course C-D from rectangle No.61,<\/p>\n
Khasra Nos.4 and 5. The said land comprised in rectangle No.61, Khasra<\/p>\n
Nos.4 and 5 is owned by the petitioner Suresh Kumar. According to the<\/p>\n
petitioner before passing the said order dated 7.3.2007 (Annexure-P.5) the<\/p>\n
Divisional Canal Officer (respondent No.3) did not give any opportunity of<\/p>\n
hearing to him. Aggrieved against the order dated 7.3.2007 (Annexure-P.5),<\/p>\n
passed by the Divisional Canal Officer (respondent No.3), Pardeep Kumar<\/p>\n
(respondent No.7) filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer,<\/p>\n
Rohtak. Again a prayer was made for sanctioning the water course A-B<\/p>\n
from the land comprised in rectangle No.38, Khasra Nos.24, 25\/1 and 25\/2<\/p>\n
besides for setting aside the order dated 7.3.2007 (Annexure-P.5). The<\/p>\n
Superintending Canal Officer, Rohtak (respondent No.2) accepted the<\/p>\n
appeal vide order dated 12.7.2007 (Annexure-P.7) and the application for<\/p>\n
sanctioning the water course A-B from the land comprised in rectangle<\/p>\n
No.38, Khasra Nos.24, 25\/1 and 25\/2 was allowed. The respondents No.4<\/p>\n
to 6 then filed an appeal against the order dated 12.7.2007 (Annexure-P.7)<\/p>\n
of the Superintending Canal Officer, Rohtak before the Chief Canal Officer,<\/p>\n
Panchkula (respondent No.1) who accepted the same vide order dated<\/p>\n
29.1.2008 (Annexure-P.8). The petitioner aggrieved against the said order<\/p>\n
has filed the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
             After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the<\/p>\n
record, it may be noticed that the primary grievance of the petitioner is that<\/p>\n
before passing the order dated 29.1.2008 (Annexure-P.8), the petitioner was<\/p>\n
not heard. A perusal of the site plans (Annexure-P.9) to the petition and<\/p>\n
(Annexure-R.1) attached with the written statement of respondents No.4 to
\n                                                   C.W.P. No.14458 of 2008
\n                                     [4]<\/p>\n
6 filed through Ram Bhagat (respondent No.5) show that the land comprised<\/p>\n
in rectangle No.61, Khasra Nos.4\/2 and 5 is owned by the petitioner Suresh<\/p>\n
Kumar. In terms of the impugned order dated 29.1.2008 (Annexure-P.8)<\/p>\n
passed by the Chief Canal Officer, Panchkula, the water course C-D has<\/p>\n
been sanctioned through the said land. Pardeep Kumar (respondent No.7)<\/p>\n
had in fact prayed that the water course A-B be sanctioned from the land<\/p>\n
comprised in rectangle No.38, Khasra Nos.24, 25\/1 and 25\/2. The water<\/p>\n
course is now being carved out of the land of the petitioner and that too<\/p>\n
without hearing him.      His rights in the facts and circumstances are<\/p>\n
materially affected.\n<\/p>\n
      It may be noticed that Section 17 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage<\/p>\n
Act, 1974 (`Act’ – for short) provides for preparation of draft scheme. It is<\/p>\n
provided that notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in the Act<\/p>\n
but subject to the rules prescribed, Divisional Canal Officer may, on his<\/p>\n
own motion or on the application of share holder, prepare a draft scheme to<\/p>\n
provide for all or any of the matters, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
            (a) The construction, alteration, extension and alignment of any<\/p>\n
            watercourse or re-alignment of any existing watercourse;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (b) allotment of any new areas to a watercourse or an outlet or<\/p>\n
            allotment of area served by one watercourse to another or from<\/p>\n
            one outlet to another or for exclusion of an area, from an outlet<\/p>\n
            or a watercourse;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (c) construction of a new outlet, shifting or modification of an<\/p>\n
            existing outlet.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Explanation:- Any change in the design or size or both of an<\/p>\n
            outlet, whose design or size or both have been changed in an
\n                                                  C.W.P. No.14458 of 2008
\n                                      [5]<\/p>\n
            unauthorised manner for restoring the same to its authorised<\/p>\n
            discharge shall not be deemed to be a modification;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (d) the lining of any watercourse;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (e) the occupation of land for the deposit of soil from<\/p>\n
            watercourse clearances;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (f) any other matter which is necessary for the proper<\/p>\n
            maintenance and distribution or supply of water from a<\/p>\n
            watercourse or an outlet.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In terms of Section 17 of the Act in case there is to be construction,<\/p>\n
alteration, extension and alignment of any watercourse or allotment of any<\/p>\n
new area to a watercourse or allotment of any new areas to a watercourse or<\/p>\n
an outlet or allotment of area served by one watercourse to another or from<\/p>\n
one outlet to another or for exclusion of an area, from an outlet or a<\/p>\n
watercourse or any other matter which is necessary for the proper<\/p>\n
maintenance and distribution or supply of water from a watercourse or an<\/p>\n
outlet a draft scheme is to be prepared. The scheme so prepared is to be<\/p>\n
published in terms of Section 18 of the Act which provides for publication<\/p>\n
of scheme. It is envisaged therein that every scheme shall, as soon as, may<\/p>\n
after its preparation, be published in such form and manner as may be<\/p>\n
prescribed for inviting objections and suggestions in respect thereof within<\/p>\n
twenty-one days of its publication. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act<\/p>\n
provides that after considering such objections and suggestions, if any, the<\/p>\n
Divisional Canal Officer shall approve, modify or reject the scheme within<\/p>\n
thirty days of the time for the receipt of such objections and suggestions,<\/p>\n
unless this period is extended by the Superintending Canal Officer for good
\n                                                      C.W.P. No.14458 of 2008
\n                                       [6]<\/p>\n
and sufficient reasons. In terms of the proviso prior approval of the Chief<\/p>\n
Canal Officer is to be obtained for allowing,- (a) a new outlet on a main<\/p>\n
canal or branch canal; and (b) an outlet with discharge of less than 0.75<\/p>\n
cusec. Section 18 of the Act, therefore, applies to local re-adjustment even<\/p>\n
within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Canal Officer with respect to<\/p>\n
matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 17. Besides, Section 18<\/p>\n
statutorily contemplates the application of the principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n
As such, before sanctioning the water course C-D a scheme was liable to be<\/p>\n
published. In the circumstances, there has been an infraction of the rules,<\/p>\n
besides non-compliance of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it would be<\/p>\n
just and expedient that the order dated 29.1.2008 (Annexure-P.8) passed by<\/p>\n
the Chief Canal Officer is set aside and the case is remanded back to him for<\/p>\n
considering the objections of the petitioner as admittedly he has not been<\/p>\n
heard before passing the said order. As such, his rights are materially<\/p>\n
affected and it would be just and expedient that a hearing is given to him.<\/p>\n
             Accordingly, the civil writ petition is allowed and the order<\/p>\n
dated 29.1.2008 (Annexure-P.8) passed by the Chief Canal Officer,<\/p>\n
Panchkula (respondent No.1) is set aside and the case is remanded to him<\/p>\n
for fresh consideration after hearing all the parties.<\/p>\n
             The petitioner and respondents No.4 to 6 shall appear before<\/p>\n
the Chief Canal Officer on 21.12.2009.\n<\/p>\n
\nOctober 29, 2009.                                         (S.S. Saron)
\n                                                               Judge
\n*hsp*<\/p>\n
NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Suresh Kumar vs The Chief Canal Officer\/L.W.S.U. on 29 October, 2009 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh …… C.W.P. No.14458 of 2008 ….. Date of decision:29.10.2009 Suresh Kumar …..Petitioner v. The Chief Canal Officer\/L.W.S.U., Irrigation Department, Panchkula and others …..Respondents …. Present: Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-199790","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSuresh Kumar vs The Chief Canal Officer\/L.W.S.U. on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suresh Kumar vs The Chief Canal Officer\/L.W.S.U. on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-15T18:04:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Suresh Kumar vs The Chief Canal Officer\/L.W.S.U. on 29 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-15T18:04:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1472,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Suresh Kumar vs The Chief Canal Officer\/L.W.S.U. on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-15T18:04:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suresh Kumar vs The Chief Canal Officer\/L.W.S.U. on 29 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Suresh Kumar vs The Chief Canal Officer\/L.W.S.U. on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suresh Kumar vs The Chief Canal Officer\/L.W.S.U. on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-15T18:04:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Suresh Kumar vs The Chief Canal Officer\/L.W.S.U. on 29 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-15T18:04:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009"},"wordCount":1472,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009","name":"Suresh Kumar vs The Chief Canal Officer\/L.W.S.U. on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-15T18:04:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-kumar-vs-the-chief-canal-officerl-w-s-u-on-29-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suresh Kumar vs The Chief Canal Officer\/L.W.S.U. on 29 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199790","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=199790"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199790\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199790"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199790"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199790"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}