RSA No. 4749 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4749 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.11.2011 Tek Ram ........ Appellant Versus SDO Canal Israna Water Services and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the appellant. JORA SINGH, J. Tek Ram-appellant/plaintiff preferred this Regular Second Appeal to challenge the concurrent findings of both the Courts' below. Appellant-plaintiff filed main suit for mandatory and permanent injunction on the allegation that is in possession of land bearing killa No. 11, khewat No. 10/8, khatoni No. 14, rectangle No. 55, killa No. 20, rectangle No. 55, killa Nos. 16 and 17, rectangle No. 56 khewat No. 10/8, khatoni No. 14 situated in the revenue estate of village Shahpur, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat. After obtaining a loan of ` 16,000/-, got installed tube well and constructed kotha in killa No. 11. Respondents-defendants No. 1 to 4 sanctioned water course in the year 1961-62 through killa Nos. 20 and 16 and the said water course is being used by the respondents but in the year 2000, respondents-defendants RSA No. 4749 of 2010 -2- No. 1 to 4 provided another water course through killa No. 11 but they had no right to construct the water course in killa No. 11 without the consent of the appellant who is the owner of this killa number. Kotha and tube well were forcibly demolished by the respondents No. 1 to 4. Water course was also wrongly constructed in killa No. 11 without the consent of the appellant. Allegation of the respondents is that in the year 2000 appellant had dismantled the water course from killa No. 5/11 constructed by MITC lining authority. Aggrieved shareholders moved an application for restoration of the water course and the same was restored. Appellant had allowed the MITC to construct the water course in khasra No. 55/11. After going through the evidence on file, learned trial Court opined that water course in killa No. 11 was rightly constructed by respondents No. 1 to 4 with the consent of shareholders. Appellant admitted that water course was constructed by the Department. Katcha water course was converted into pucca one. Water course in khasra No. 55/11 is in existence. Water course was constructed in the year 2000 but suit was filed in the month of March, 2004. So, before the start of construction by the respondents, appellant should have filed suit for mandatory or permanent injunction but no civil suit. After the water course was constructed then the appellant remained silent for about 4 years. After 4 years main suit for mandatory and permanent injunction was instituted with a request that respondents No. 1 to 4 be directed to dismantle the water course constructed in khasra No. 55/11 with further request to keep one water course in running condition for agricultural RSA No. 4749 of 2010 -3- purpose. In case, without consent of the appellant, water course was being constructed then immediately suit for injunction should have been filed. There was no idea to wait and allow the respondents to complete the construction and after completion of the construction file suit for mandatory and permanent injunction after 4 years. In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence on file rightly rejected the claim of the appellant. No substantial question of law is involved because in the presence of the appellant, water course was constructed by MITC. Four years after the completion of water course, civil suit was instituted. For the reasons recorded above, instant appeal is dismissed. November 15, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE