Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1490
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Krishan Kumar Sihag and others - Appellants
Versus
Dulla Ram and others - Respondents
R.S.A. No. 3665 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-11-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj, Mr. J.K. Sehrawat
The central legal point established in the judgment is the illegal installation of tubewells without written consent and the impact on the village's water supply.
Headnote:
Water Rights - Permanent Injunction - [Water Rights] - [Indian Easements Act, 1882, Section 7] - The court discussed the legality of tubewells installed without permission and the scarcity of drinking water. The judgment was based on the illegal installation of tubewells and the impact on the village's water supply.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from digging and constructing water works and to remove tubewells installed in a village, citing scarcity of drinking water and illegal installation of tubewells.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court partly favored the plaintiffs, directing the removal of tubewells, and the first appeal was dismissed. The second appeal was also dismissed by the court.
Issues: The issues included the legality of water works construction, scarcity of drinking water, locus standi of the plaintiffs, cause of action, estoppel, clean hands, mis-joinder, non-joinder of parties, frivolousness of the suit, and notice under Section 80 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the tubewells were illegally installed without written consent and were on village land, leading to scarcity of drinking water for the villagers.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeal, concluding that it lacked merit and substance.
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
The present regular second appeal is at the behest of defendants No. 6, 8 to 12 being aggrieved of the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below decreeing the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs.
2. The parties for the sake of convenience are being referred to as per their status in the original suit.
3. The plaintiffs preferred a suit for permanent injunction to the effect that defendants No. 1 to 5 be restrained from digging and constructing water works in Khewat No. 922 min, Khatauni No.1139 in Khasra No. 118//4-7 situated at village Chuli Bagriyan. A direction was sought that defendants No. 4 to 12 be directed to remove the tubewells installed in Khewat No. 922 min, Khatauni No.1139, from Killa No. 118/3, 118/7, 118/8, 118/9, 118/14 as these tubewells pump out most of the water from the water works which is meant for drinking.
4. The facts as averred by the plaintiffs are that they are residents of Village Chuli Bagariyan, Tehsil Adampur, District Hisar. Water works was installed in the said village by defendants No. 1 to 5. Defendants No. 6 to 12 installed 16 tubewells in Khewat No. 922 min, killa numbers as mentioned in the suit. It was averred that the said tubewells are without legal sanction. The villagers at large are facing water problem as most of the water is pumped out of the tubewells and the drinking water supply to the village is reduced. It was averred that the Gram Panchayat and BDPO passed a resolution to construct a new water course adjoining the old one. It was alleged that the said resolution was illegal and without sanction. Hence, the suit was filed.
5. Upon notice, defendants No. 1 to 3 filed a joint written statement. Defendants No. 6, 8 to 12 filed their joint written statement raising various preliminary objections and on merits it was pleaded that there is no scarcity of water in the village and that the tubewells have been legally installed as per law.
6. Learned trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the defendants No.1 to 5 can be restrained from digging and constructing water works in the suit property and whether defendants No. 4 to 12 can be directed to remove the tubewells installed in Khewat No. 922 min, Khatauni No. 1139 from killa No. 118/3, 118/7, 118/8, 118/9, 118/14 situated at village Chulibagriyan as per jamabandi of the year 2006-07? OPP
2. Whether the villagers at large are suffering great inconvenience, scarcity and hardship due to short supply of drinking water? OPP
3. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
4. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
5. Whether plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands/ OPD
7. Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
8. Whether suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious? OPD
9. Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad on account of nonserving of notice under Section 80 CPC? OPD
10. Relief.
7. In order to support their suit, plaintiff-Dulla Ram himself deposed as PW1 and Hari Singh appeared as PW2. Application moved in various forum and their postal receipts were exhibited as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.
8. In order to rebut the suit, the defendants examined Kamal Kumar Jain SDE as DW1 and defendant No. 10 appeared as DW2. Resolution, electricity bills, receipt of payment of electricity bills and details of works etc, were exhibited as Ex.D1 to D8.
9. Learned trial Court after appreciating the facts of the case and on considering the evidence produced, decided Issue No.1 partly being infructuous and partly in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of plaintiffs. Issue No.3 and 4 were decided against the defendants. Issues No. 5 to 9 were not pressed. The net result was that vide judgment and decree dated 25.7.2013, it was held that sinc
