Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SH. TEJ BIR SINGH & ORS versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sh. Tej Bir Singh & Ors v. The State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-13634-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 5313 (7 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 13634 of 2004

Date of Decision: July 25, 2006

Sh. Tej Bir Singh and others .................................... Petitioners Versus

The State of Punjab and others ...................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nirmal Yadav

Present: Mr. A.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. C.M. Munjal, Sr. Addl. A.G.Punjab.

Mr. S.S.Bhinder, Advocate.

....

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral)

The Divisional Canal Officer vide order dated 20.11.1978 examined the proposal for framing a scheme under Section 30 of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act and ordered that the three tails i.e. tail left, right and front be kept at outlet No.22750 meaning thereby the tails were curtailed. An appeal was filed before the Superintending Canal Officer, Irrigation Branch, Circle Patiala, who accepted the appeal vide order dated 23.4.1979 (Annexure P-5) and held that as approval for curtailment has not been granted by the Chief Engineer, therefore, the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer dated 20.11.1978 is null and void.

Accordingly, the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer was quashed.

This order attained finality. Now, vide letter dated 4.8.2004 (Annexure P-6) the Divisional Canal Officer has merely informed that the orders passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala, dated 23.4.1979 would be enforced.

The present writ petition has been filed highly belatedly as vide order-Annexure P6 it has been informed by the Divisional Canal Officer [ 2 ]

C.W.P. No. 13634 of 2004

that the order-Annexure P5 would be enforced. The petitioners are directly trying to challenge the order-Annexure P5 through the present writ petition.

The order-Annexure P5 has attained finality and the challenge to Annexure P5 cannot be made after an inordinate delay.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA )

JUDGE

25.7.2006 ( NIRMAL YADAV )

Rupi JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.