IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 666 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: January 31, 2011 Prem .. Petitioner Vs. Gram Panchayat, Khandra .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sandeep Ghangas, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) This petition assails the order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat, as well as the order dated 1.12.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panipat, whereby the petitioner was refused ad-interim injunction. The petitioner is a resident of village Khandra. In this suit he has alleged that there are concrete drains in the village for flowing of the rain and sullage water so as there is drain in the street in front of his house. Now the Gram Panchayat having rivalry against him wants to change the flow of water by carving a drain in front of his house from point “A” to “E” as shown in the site plan appended to the plaint. Upon notice, the defendant- respondent Gram Panchayat (herein referred as, 'the respondent') filed a written statement and reply to the application where in it denied all the allegations and stated that the respondent has every right to construct the drain for the free flow of sullage and rainy water in order to avoid the spreading of epidemics in the village. The application was dismissed so as his appeal. The trial court has observed that the drain mark “AB” has already been constructed by the respondent and the street has been made paved since earlier and it is functioning smoothly and the petitioner wanted to close the drain from point A to B and wants to create obstruction in construction of the drain from point A to E for which the petitioner has no right. In this regard, I trace back to the report made by the Local Commissioner dated 14.9.2010 submitted on 8.10.2010, which reveals that Civil Revision No. 666 of 2011 (O&M) -2- *** there were drains flowing from South to North on both sides of the street, as such the petitioner cannot say that there is no drain at present in front of his house. Even otherwise, the respondent is vested with powers to manage the Gram Panchayat's property and maintain general sanitation. Section 34 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 vests the Gram Panchayat with the powers to have control of all the public streets and water sources and had to construct new bridges or culverts, divert, discontinue or close any public street, culvert or bridge. It could also widen, open, enlarge or otherwise improve any public street culvert and the bridge with minimum damage to the neighbouring fields. Thus, in view of the unfettered powers conferred upon the respondent to make any change in the public streets including that of diverting the waterways and to construct the drains, the respondent cannot be said to have acted in excess of its powers. While taking the case from another angle, the respondent on the advise of its technical staff is diverting the flow of the drain for removing obstructions in the street without causing damage to the petitioner, then the petitioner cannot be said to have any prima facie case in his favour and he will also not suffer any irreparable loss or damage if any such drain is carved in the street in front of his house. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. January 31, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge