Back
1995 Supreme(HP) 47
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
S.N.PHUKAN
UNION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
GANGA SINGH - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 85 of 1995
Decided On : 07/12/1995
For the appellant(s)/petitioner(s): :N. K. Sood, Advocate. For the respondent(s):M. C. Mandhotra, Advocate and Ganga Singh, respondent No. 1, in person.
A plaintiff seeking an injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case for irreparable loss or balance of convenience in order to succeed.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'INJUNCTION', 'SUBJECT': 'Balancing Reservoir Dredging', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure', 'Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974'], 'SUMMARY': 'The court set aside the injunction granted by the lower appellate court restraining the defendants from dredging silt from a balancing reservoir into a river, finding that the plaintiffs had not made out a prima facie case for irreparable loss or balance of convenience. The court considered the long delay in filing the suit and injunction petition, the existence of a committee to assess compensation for crop damage, and the steps taken by the defendants to protect the interests of the local population, including removal of silt from paddy land and provision of funds for drinking water supply. The court also noted the public importance of the project and the potential harm to the power grid and beneficiaries if the injunction were to stand.'}
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, owners of land irrigated by a river, filed a suit against the defendants, a government agency responsible for a dam and balancing reservoir project, alleging that the dredging of silt and sand from the reservoir into the river was causing pollution and damage to their land. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dredging and compensation for damages. The defendants filed a petition challenging the injunction granted by the lower appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had not made out a prima facie case for irreparable loss or balance of convenience. The court considered the long delay in filing the suit and injunction petition, the existence of a committee to assess compensation for crop damage, and the steps taken by the defendants to protect the interests of the local population, including removal of silt from paddy land and provision of funds for drinking water supply. The court also noted the public importance of the project and the potential harm to the power grid and beneficiaries if the injunction were to stand.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for irreparable loss or balance of convenience to justify the grant of an injunction. 2. Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to hear the suit in light of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs had not made out a prima facie case for irreparable loss or balance of convenience. The court considered the long delay in filing the suit and injunction petition, the existence of a committee to assess compensation for crop damage, and the steps taken by the defendants to protect the interests of the local population, including removal of silt from paddy land and provision of funds for drinking water supply. The court also noted the public importance of the project and the potential harm to the power grid and beneficiaries if the injunction were to stand.
Final Decision: The court set aside the injunction granted by the lower appellate court and restored the order of the trial court, which had dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an injunction.
S. N, Phukan, C. J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Mandi, dated 18 3-1995 passed in C. M A No. 32 of 1993 The present petition has been filed by the defendants,
2. In the year 1991 the respondents herein, filed a civil suit before the learned Sub-Judge, Sundernagar, which was registered as suit No, 65 of 1991. Thereafter, in June 1993, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the learned trial Court, which was dismissed, but by the impugned order the learned lower appellate Court allowed the injunction and the present petitioner Nos 2 and 3 were restrained from dredging the silt from Balancing Reservoir at Suadernagar in a manner which may lead to ingress of silt into the suit land or which may cause obstruction to the Kuhals (water channels) through which water from Suketi Khad is channalised for irrigation of the suit land or which may render tin; water drawn for irrigation by the plaintiffs-appellants from Suketi Khad polluted with silt till the disposal of the suit Against the said order, the present petition has been filed.
3. A copy of the plaint is available at Annexure P-I. The suit was filed by ten persons against the Union of India, Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board and the Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, (for short, B. B. M, B.). According to the plaintiffs, the suit land is being irrigated since time immemorial from the waters of Rivujet Suketi Khad by its owners. The defendants, namely, B.B.M.B. constructed a Dam at Pandoh, District Mandi, and diverted the water of River Beas through a tunnel from Pandoh in Baggi and an open channel from Baggi to Sundernagar and finally another tunnel from Sundernagar to Slapper and thereafter carried the water of River Beas into the River Sutlej The defendants also constructed at Ropa Sundernagar town a Balancing Reservoir at the tail-end of the Baggi-Sundemagar Beas Sutlej Link Open Channel in order to clean the River Beas water to silt and sand The said Balancing Reservoir is situated at the Head of Rivulet Suketi-Khad, which avoiding to the plaintiffs irrigates the suit land of the plaintiffs it has also been pleaded that the water of River Beas pours down every day "lacks of tonnes of sand and silt into the above Balancing Reservoir and the defendants dredge out the accumulated sand and silt from he said Balancing Reservoir into the Rivulet Suketi Khad, which mixes with and flows down with the water of Rivulet Suketi Khad and settles down and accumulates in(o the suit land of the plaintiffs It has also been stand in the plaint that since 1978 the defendants have started dredging out the silt and sand and caused pollution in Suketi Rivulet with sand and silt and made its water unfit for human or animal use and consumption and also unfit for irrigation. By this process, the Kuhals (Irrigation Channels) are being filled with sand and silt and destroyed the fertility of the suit land since 1978 due to accumulation of sand and silt in the suit land. It is admitted that in July 1988, the plaintiffs were paid compensation In the plaint, a decree has been prayed for restoration of the land of the plaintiffs to its original state prior to 1978; perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dredging out silt and sand into Suketi Khad and also for a preliminary decree to ascertain the compensation due to damage caused to the crops of the plaintiffs since 1979.
4. It is not necessary for the present purpose to refer the written statement and reference may be made to the facts stated in the present petition It is stated that Beas Sutlej Link Project was construction for diversion of water of River Beas at Pandoh through a water conductor system so as to generate power at Dehar Power Plant located at Slapper and then at Bhakra The entire B. B M. B. system comprising the Power Houses at Bhakra, Ganguwal and Kotla, Pong and Dehar, which is a part of the northe
