CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7883 OF 2011 :{ 1 }:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 01, 2012

Baba Karnail Singh

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

and others

....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:

Mr. Parshotam Lal Singla, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Addl.A.G., Punjab,

for the State.

Mr. K. S. Dadwal, Advocate,

for respondent No.8.

Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate,

for respondent No.9.

*****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court through

the present writ petition with a prayer to quash order dated 11.4.2011

(Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No.3.

Grievance of the petitioner, noted in brief, is that

there is a common pucca street in the village constructed by Gram

Panchayat, which is in existence for the last 20 years. This street has

`Nallis' (drains) on both sides. The water from the houses flows into

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7883 OF 2011 :{ 2 }:

said drains and the flow leads from western to eastern side.

Respondent No.9 is stated to be a man of resources and having

political links. Respondent No.9 accordingly threatened the petitioner

to dig up/uproot the pucca construction of the street to change the

flow of water on to reverse direction.

It is stated that earlier also in the year 2005, the pucca

street was dug up, which was reconstructed from the Panchayat

funds. Respondent No.9 is stated to have filed false complaints to

create obstructions, which after enquiry, were dismissed. A report

was also sent by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer,

Phillaur to District Development and Panchayat Officer in reference

to the complaints filed by respondent No.9. Said respondent also

made an attempt to stop the construction forcibly. The issue was then

taken before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Phillaur and respondent No.9 had obtained some orders for changing

the flow of water on to a wrong side. Finally, the case was resolved,

when the matter reached before this Court in a writ petition.

The petitioner had appeared before the Deputy Director

(Complaints), Rural Development and Panchayat Department,

Chandigarh, and respondent No.2 passed an order, setting-aside the

order dated 11.9.2009. Enquiry was entrusted to Superintending

Engineer, Panchayati Raj, Roopnagar. The writ petition was filed to

challenge the order dated 14.10.2010, whereby order dated

11.9.2009 was set-aside. The enquiry was also got conducted. Some

directions were issued for District Development and Panchayat

Officer to take immediate steps. Block Development and Panchayat

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7883 OF 2011 :{ 3 }:

Officer also visited the village. In this background, the petitioner

being aggrieved against a direction issued by the Deputy Director for

taking immediate action on the basis of enquiry by Executive

Engineer that he has filed this petition.

The petitioner would contend that the flow, which is

sought to be changed in a manner that it will cause inconvenience to

all the residents of the street. Gram Panchayat is made as a party.

Counsel appearing for Gram Panchayat has placed before me a site

plan of the area. As per the counsel, the flow of water has always

been going from western side to eastern side, ultimately leading to a

pond. Now prayer made is to divert the flow of water in a small

portion shown and marked in yellow on the site plan. This is an area

of about 20 feet or so. If that is done, the water will flow on to the

road. This site plan is kept on record. Considering the stand of the

Panchayat, the a