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