Section 18(2) – Water course – Change of chak – Judicial Review -- Authorities while dealing with the issue has clarified that no adverse effect would be caused to irrigation to the land of the petitioners because the size of outlet would be adjusted proportionately – From the existing source, the irrigation to the land of respondent-party has been negligible, by change he would get irrigation -- Orders passed by Authorities do not suffer from any perversity or want of jurisdiction – No violation of any mandatory provision so as to show that the orders have been passed without following due process of law -- No ground for judicial review of the orders passed by the authorities. Nazar Singh & others v. Divisional Canal Officer, Rori Water Services Division, Sirsa & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 229 (P&H).
Section 24 – Water course – Obstruction in -- Petitioner encroached upon the berm of the lined water course while constructing his house on a plot -- Petitioner has also unauthorizedly left a mori and fixed a gargoyle on the roof of house from which water is discharged on the bank of the lined water course -- Said offending act of the petitioner caused damage to the water course outlet which is used for irrigation and cattle drinking purposes -- Authorities have acted within their legal jurisdiction in directing removal of obstruction in smooth use of canal water -- Contention that u/s 24 of the Act, removal of gargoyle could not have been ordered -- Contention rejected. Manohar Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer, Hisar & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 323 (P&H).
No comments:
Post a Comment