Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahavir Singh And Another vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 6 July, 2010
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 1823 of 1986
DATE OF DECISION : 06.07.2010
Mahavir Singh and another
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. G.S. Chahal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J ( Oral ) The petitioners, who are the share-holders and residents of village Kasandi, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, have challenged the orders dated 17.10.1984 (Annexure P-3), 22.3.1985 (Annexure P-4) and 22.1.1986 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Karnal Division, W.J.C., Karnal, the Superintending Canal Officer, W.J.C., East Circle, Delhi and the Chief Canal Officer, Haryana, Chandigarh, respectively, under the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), whereby after inviting objections and suggestions from the interested parties under Section 18 of the Act, 27 acres of the land, belonging to the petitioners, was transferred from outlet RD 102230-R to CWP No. 1823 of 1986 -2- outlet RD 99882-R. It is the case of the petitioners that prior to the passing of the said orders, in the year 1976, on their application, the aforesaid land was transferred from outlet RD 99882-R to outlet RD 102230-R. It is the further case of the petitioners that when on earlier occasion, the canal authorities prepared a scheme under Section 18 (2) of the Act and transferred the aforesaid land of the petitioners to the above-said outlet, thereafter, they have no jurisdiction to re-frame the scheme after reviewing their earlier order. It has also been contended that the canal authorities, while preparing the new scheme, have not complied with the mandatory requirement of the provisions of the Act. It is alleged that neither any publication regarding the scheme was made nor the petitioners, who are the effected persons, were afforded an opportunity to file objections, therefore, the impugned orders, passed by the canal authorities, are liable to be quashed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders.
In the present case, the dispute is regarding the transfer of an area of 27 acres of land, belonging to the petitioners, from outlet RD 102230-R to outlet RD 99882-R. It is undisputed position that initially the aforesaid land of the petitioners, which is situated within the Hadbast of village Kasandi, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, was allotted and put under outlet RD 99882-R. It is also undisputed position that outlet RD 102230-R is meant for the area of village Khanpur Kalan, Tehsil Gohana, District CWP No. 1823 of 1986 -3- Sonepat. It is further undisputed position that after 8 years, shareholders of village Khanpur Kalan i.e. respondents No.5 to 10, moved an application that the aforesaid area of the petitioners be transferred to outlet RD 99882- R, as the shareholders of village Khanpur Kalan are facing great difficulty in irrigating their fields, because no canal water reaches to their area, as the shareholders of village Kasandi, whose land is situated at the head of outlet RD 102230-R, made an unauthorised cut. While looking into the said problem, the Divisional Canal Officer, vide order dated 17.10.1984, made a new scheme for transfer of the aforesaid 27 acres of land from outlet RD 102230-R to outlet RD 99882-R, after making due publication, inviting the objections and following the procedure under the Act. The scheme was approved, whereby 27 acres of land was transferred to RD 99882-R, to which it was originally allocated, while making the following observations :-
"From the perusal of irrigation figures supplied by Assessment Clerk, Karnal, it is seen that area of village Kasondi under question irrigation for three years i.e. 1974 to 1976 is 74% from outlet RD 99882/R Israna Disty and irrigation of adjoining area last three years from outlet RD 99882/R Israna Disty is 135% which are very much. From the prusal of the site inspection on 7.10.1984, it is also seen that there seems no depression at site and as adjoining area is having 135% irrigation from the existing outlet i.e. 99882/R Israna Disty. So area under question will also receive proper irrigation from the proposed outlet at RD 99882/R Israna Disty and the irrigation is not likely to decrease if the area transferred CWP No. 1823 of 1986 -4- as proposed."
On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning and keeping in view the interest of irrigation, the aforesaid order was passed. On appeal, filed by the petitioners, the said order was affirmed by the Superintending Canal Officer, while observing that shareholders of 27 acres of land at village Kasandi, which is situated adjoining to outlet RD 102230-R, are likely to mis-use the water, because their area is located at some distance from the authorised source at RD 99882-R. It was brought out that they had been mis-using and making unauthorised cut, while irrigating their land. Against the said order, the petitioners filed appeal before the Chief Canal Officer, which has also been dismissed. These orders have been challenged in the instant petition.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any ground to interfere in the orders, passed by the canal authorities under the provisions of the Act. The canal authorities, while exercising its jurisdiction, before approving the scheme under Section 18 of the Act for transferring the aforesaid land to a particular outlet, have followed the procedure prescribed under the Act. The canal authorities have taken the said decision in the interest of irrigation. It has been categorically found that due to the allotment of the land to outlet RD 102230-R, shareholders of village Kasandi freely fight on the water and unauthorised cut is being made by the villagers to irrigate their land. This fact has been established from the record produced before the authorities, which clearly indicates that the area CWP No. 1823 of 1986 -5- of village Kasandi gets 135% irrigation from outlet RD 99882-R, whereas the area of village Khanpur Kalan is getting only 74% irrigation. It has been mentioned by the Divisional Canal Officer that he himself inspected the site on 7.10.1984 and found no substance in the objection raised by the petitioners that if the area is transferred to outlet RD 99882-R, same will not be properly irrigated. It has been found during inspection that the area of village Khanpur Kalan was not getting proper irrigation, as the adjoining area of the village of the petitioners was getting 135% irrigation from the said outlet. From the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, it is clear that before passing the final order, the scheme was published and objections were invited. Under the Act, there is no bar for the authorities to frame a new scheme. The petitioners also appeared before the Divisional Canal Officer and raised their objections and they were duly heard. There is no substance in the argument that the scheme was framed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Thus, I do not find any jurisdictional error or any illegality in the impugned orders, passed by the canal authorities.
Dismissed.
July 06, 2010 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE