Skip to content


Bhagwati Singh and anr. Vs. Asstt. Engineer and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ No. 4866 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1971All40
ActsNorthern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 - Sections 55
AppellantBhagwati Singh and anr.
RespondentAsstt. Engineer and anr.
Appellant AdvocateS.C. Khare and ;Ram Surat Singh, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateV.N. Khare, Adv. and ;Standing Counsel
DispositionWrit petition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....of the state government - section 55 of northern indian canal and drainage act, 1873 - the state government has the power to prevent obstruction - of any river or stream - under certain circumstances mentioned in section 55 - state government has the complete authority in such circumstances. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the..........impugned notice was issued to the petitioners. section 55 reads:--- 'whenever it appears to the state government that injury to any land or the public health or public convenience has arisen or may arise from the obstruction of any river, stream or drainage --channel, such government may, by notification published in the official gazette, prohibit, within limits to be defined in such notification, the formation of any obstruction, or may, within such limits, order the removal or other modification of such obstruction. thereupon so much of the said river, stream or drainge-channel as is comprised within such limits shall be held to be a drainage-work as defined in section 3.' 3. in terms of section 55, the state government has power to prevent obstruction of any river or stream even.....
Judgment:
ORDER

H.C.P. Tripathi, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against a notice issued by the Assistant Engineer. Canal Division. Mirzapur, Respondent No. 1, asking the petitioner and other residents of his village not to put a dam and thereby prevent the flow of the Poka Nala which passes through the village, otherwise they will make themselves liable to prosecution' under Section 70 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act. The contention of the petitioners is that as it is a natural stream flowing through their village, the respondents have no right to ask them not to put a dam in the Nala for storing water for irrigating their fields. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the Nala is maintained by the State Irrigation Department of Uttar Pradesh and when the villagers put a small kutcha dam inside the Nala it resulted in accumulation of water and in order to avoid any danger of overflowing the notice was served on them. It has been averred further that for irrigation purposes the tenure holders are not prevented from drawing water by any means which will not create any over-flooding and obstruction in the natural flow of the water

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. With the supplementary affidavit of respondent No. 1 a copy of the gazette notification dated 24th January 1962 has been annexed as Annexure I- This notification was issued under Section 55 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act and it was in puruance of this notification that the impugned notice was issued to the petitioners.

Section 55 reads:---

'Whenever it appears to the State Government that injury to any land or the public health or public convenience has arisen or may arise from the obstruction of any river, stream or drainage --channel, such government may, by notification published in the official gazette, prohibit, within limits to be defined in such notification, the formation of any obstruction, or may, within such limits, order the removal or other modification of such obstruction.

Thereupon so much of the said river, stream or drainge-channel as is comprised within such limits shall be held to be a drainage-work as defined in Section 3.'

3. In terms of Section 55, the State Government has power to prevent obstruction of any river or stream even if it is a natural stream under certain circumstances mentioned in the section. Thus the State Government is the sole judge of those circumstances. In this case the Government notification dated 24th January 1962 shows that the State was satisfied that by preventing the natural flow of water in Pokha Nala, a danger of public health and public convenience was apprehended. That being so, in my opinion the State Government was justified in issuing the aforesaid notification. Notice issued to the petitioner was only to invite their attention to the aforesaid notification which was fully justified.

There is no force in this petition and it is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //