COCP No. 1162 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No 1162 of 2010 Date of decision:- 9.8.2010 Ram Nath ......petitioner vs. Mr. Amneet P. Kumar, Dy. Commissioner and others ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) It has been pointed out that earlier a Division Bench of this Court, after hearing all the parties concerned, on 24.5.2000, directed the respondents to decide representation (Annexure P-4) and Legal Notice (Annexure P-5), within a period of four months. In the aforesaid representation and legal notice, the claim of the petitioner was to seek implementation of the order of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Haryana, for the excavation of the water-course. Subsequently, another writ petition bearing No. 4245 of 2001 was filed claiming that the order (Annexure P-2) be implemented in letter and spirit at the spot. In reply to the aforesaid writ petition, the respondents relied upon statement made by the petitioner on 23.7.1997 (Annexure R-1) with the effect that order has been complied with. However, it was also ordered that, in case, order has not been complied with the same shall be complied within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is supplied to the respondents. Later on, the petitioner filed another writ petition bearing No. 4564 COCP No. 1162 of 2010 -2- of 2008 which was disposed of on 22.1.2009 with liberty to petitioner to take any alternative appropriate remedy as may be available to the petitioner for implementation of the order. In response to the show cause notice, affidavit has been filed by Executive Engineer, Pundari, Water Services Division Kaithal-respondent No. 3, pointing out that the Divisional Canal Officer, Kurukshetra has passed an amount of compensation Rs. 4973/-. Later, it transpired that the land acquired in rectangle Killa No. 166, 4 kanal and 5 marla is the reserved land for water course by the consolidation department. Thereafter, on request from the petitioner, a fresh process for acquiring land, in question, was started and compensation amounting to Rs. 3107/- was sanctioned by the then Divisional Canal Officer vide decision dated 4.12.1995. The excess amount of Rs. 1865/- was refunded to petitioner. It has further been pointed out that the water course has been got excavated in the presence of police party on 23.7.1997, as is evident from the statement of petitioner (Annexure R-1). It has also been pointed out that, in case, land meant for water course has been taken under possession forcibly, the petitioner should have applied under Section 24 of the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, 1974, of the Divisional Canal Officer concerned to get the water course restored to its original condition. But the petitioner has submitted a simple application to the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal-respondent No. 1, for restoration of the water course which is not in accordance to law. However, the Canal Authorities have restored the water course on 7.12.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in terms Section 23 of Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, 1974, the respondents are bound to maintain water course at the cost of shareholders which has been taken COCP No. 1162 of 2010 -3- over by Triloki Nath and therefore, the respondents are bound to maintain water course granted to the petitioner in the year 1986. The direction sought by the petitioner in terms of Section 23 of the Act is for maintenance of water course at the cost of shareholders which shall implead the petitioner as well. Writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of in the year 2000 with the direction to decide the legal notice. Subsequently, it was noticed that the order has been complied with. The said fact is apparent from the reply filed by the Executive Engineer. If the water course has been demolished by any person, the petitioner has a remedy under Section 24 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage, Act 1974. In view of the said fact, the order passed by this Court has been complied with, if the petitioner has any subsisting grievance, it shall be open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies available according to law. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 9.8.2010 preeti