IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13625 of 1995 DATE OF DECISION : 23.08.2011 Smt. Shashi Kala .... PETITIONER Versus The Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar and others ..... RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No. 9794 of 1996 DATE OF DECISION : 23.08.2011 Vijay Kumar .... PETITIONER Versus District Collector, Ferozepur and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No. 13625 of 1995) Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No. 9794 of 1996) Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2 (in CWP No. 13625 of 1995) and for respondents No.1 to 3 (in CWP No. 9794 of 1996) Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 5 (in CWP No. 13625 of 1995) and for respondent No.4 (in CWP No. 9794 of 1996) * * * CWP No. 13625 of 1995 -2- SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J This judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 13625 of 1995 and 9794 of 1996, arising from the common order dated 10.8.1993, passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar, which was affirmed by the District Collector, Ferozepur, vide two separate orders. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 13625 of 1995. In this case, respondents No.3 to 5, namely Nasib Kaur, Harnek Singh and Gurdev Kaur, after purchase of certain land in village Singhpura, Tehsil Fazilka, filed an application under Section 30-A of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), for providing a new water course to them through the land of petitioners Shashi Bala and Vijay Kumar, for irrigating their land. On the said application, the Divisional Canal Officer prepared a draft scheme for providing a new water course, passing through the land of the petitioners on the southern side of killas No. 2,3 and 4 of Rectangle No. 80. After issuing notice of the said scheme to the interested and effected persons, vide order dated 24.6.1986, the Divisional Canal Officer approved the draft scheme under Section 30-B (2) of the Act. It is the case of the petitioners that without considering the matter properly and judicially, ignoring and not dealing with the main objections raised by them, the Divisional Canal Officer approved the draft scheme. Feeling aggrieved against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, which was dismissed on CWP No. 13625 of 1995 -3- 19.11.1986, in the absence of counsel for the petitioner, as in spite of having notice of the date of hearing, he did not appear. The application of the petitioner for re-calling the said order was also dismissed on 25.3.1987, as on that day also, counsel for the petitioner did not appear before the Superintending Canal Officer. Again, second application was filed for restoration of the earlier application, which was also dismissed on 12.1.1988. The petitioner challenged all the above said orders by filing CWP No. 4174 of 1988. During the pendency of the said writ petition, a compromise was arrived at between the parties, according to which the petitioner had agreed to provide land for the water course from the northern as also from the southern side of her holding at the choice of the demanding respondents. Accordingly, in view of the settlement between the parties, the said writ petition was disposed of, and according to the said settlement, the water course was allowed to pass from point H in the plan at Annexure P1 through killa No.4 on the eastern side and then from the northern side of killas No. 4, 3 and 2 of Rectangle No.80 upto Rectangle No. 61/21 and 80/2. Though in the said order, there was no mention of the determination of compensation, but as per Section 30-D (4) of the Act, the canal authorities were required to determine the compensation of the land used in the said water course, and respondents No.3 to 5 were liable to pay the same. In view of the aforesaid order, passed in CWP No. 4174 of 1988, when the matter was placed before the Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar, CWP No. 13625 of 1995 -4- now District Fazilka, vide order dated 10.8.1993, the water course was provided as per the aforesaid settlement, and after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the nature and market value of the land as well as report of the revenue Patwari, the Divisional Canal Officer determined the compensation of the land used in the water course at ` 4,363/-. Feeling aggrieved against the said order dated 10.8.1993, Smt. Shashi Bala (petitioner in CWP No. 13625 of 1995) filed an appeal before the District Collector, Ferozepur, challenging the determination of compensation, which was dismissed by the District Collector vide order dated 10.2.1994, while coming to the conclusion that the Divisional Canal Officer has rightly determined the compensation in accordance with the report of the Patwari and by taking into consideration the nature of the land. After more than two years of the passing of said order dated 10.8.1993 by the Divisional Canal Officer, Vijay Kumar (petitioner in CWP No. 9794 of 1996), who is also a co-sharer in the land and whose land was also to be utilised for providing the water course in question, filed separate appeal, which was dismissed by the District Collector, Ferozepur, vide order dated 27.3.1996, while making the following observations : “3. I have gone through the record. Shashi Kala had filed an appeal in the court of my predecessor Shri R.C. Nayyar, IAS, and the contents of the appeal were that the rates assessed by the Divisional Canal Officer are less. That appeal was rejected vide order dated 10.2.1994. It is, therefore, amply clear that the order dated 10.2.1994 was in the knowledge of the land owners CWP No. 13625 of 1995 -5- whose land was acquired for construction of a water course. The contention regarding lower rate has already been dismissed by my predecessor. This appeal is frivolous and seems to have been filed just to harass Nasib Kaur etc. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is dismissed. A fine of ` 5,000/- should be recovered from the appellant as arrears of land revenue. The Tehsildar, Abohar is requested to recover this fine within one month.” The aforesaid orders have been challenged in these two writ petitions. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The only issue involved in this case is about the determination of the compensation of a small piece of land, which was utilised for providing water course. It is the factual position that while determining the compensation, the Divisional Canal Officer had taken into consideration the nature of the land and report of the Revenue Officer regarding the market value of the land. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not produce any material either before this Court or before the canal authorities, indicating that the market value of the land used for the said water course was higher and the Divisional Canal Officer has wrongly determined the compensation. In the absence of any material available on record, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the compensation determined by the Divisional Canal Officer in the present case was inadequate and not fair. Under Section 30-D (4) of the Act, the Divisional Canal Officer is required to determine the compensation payable to a person, whose land is to be utilised for the water course, on the principles set out under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition CWP No. 13625 of 1995 -6- Act, 1894. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any material, on the basis of which it can be said that the compensation determined by the Divisional Canal Officer is not in accordance with the principles of the said Act. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. So far as order dated 27.3.1996, which is under challenge in CWP No. 9794 of 1996 is concerned, whereby the District Collector has imposed a fine of ` 5,000/-, to be recovered from petitioner Vijay Kumar, on the ground that he has challenged the order, which was earlier affirmed in a separate appeal, in my opinion, merely on this ground, the District Collector was not justified to impose the fine, because every person has an independent right to challenge an order. Therefore, the said portion of the order dated 27.3.1996, passed against Vijay Kumar is set aside and the writ petition (CWP No. 9794 of 1996), filed by him is partly allowed. However, the remaining portion of the order is affirmed. In view of the above, CWP No. 13625 of 1995 is dismissed and CWP No. 9794 of 1996 is partly allowed, to the extent that the order dated 27.3.1996, qua imposing of costs of ` 5,000/- upon petitioner Vijay Kumar, is set aside. August 23, 2011 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE