Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision:16.12.2013 vs Chief Canal Officer And Others on 16 December, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Kumar Vinod
2013.12.21 17:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP No.27592 of 2013 [1]
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.27592 of 2013
Date of decision:16.12.2013
Mehar Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Chief Canal Officer and others ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. G.S.Duhan, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The petitioners are aggrieved against orders passed by the Divisional Canal Officer (DCO), Pundri dated 02.07.2013, Superintendent Canal Officer (SCO) dated 12.09.2013 and the Chief Canal Officer (CCO), B.W.S. Irrigation & W.R. Department, Haryana, dated 14.11.2013 by which outlet RD 28250/R Kapil Muni Minor has been split into two outlets i.e. RD-28250/R Kapil Muni Minor and RD 37500-TR Batta Minor.
In brief, shareholders of RD 28250-R Kapil Muni Minor and residents of village Kharak Pandowa applied for splitting the outlet RD 28250-R Kapil Muni Minor with another outlet RD 37500- TR Batta Minor on the ground that their land is not receiving canal irrigation from the existing outlet. The Divisional Canal Officer has recorded in his order that the case was investigated through field staff and a suitable scheme duly recommended by the SDCO, Jakholi W/S Kumar Vinod 2013.12.21 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.27592 of 2013 [2] ***** Sub Division, Kaithal was received in the Division Office which was published amongst the shareholders through notices under Section 18(1) of the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") inviting objections/suggestions, if any. The notices were served by the Canal Patwari of Halqua under Rules. After notice, the applicants as well as objectors appeared and got recorded their statements. The spot level was observed as per the site and it was decided, after consulting the revenue missal spot levels, that some portion of the chak is of higher levels and proper command is not available from existing outlet RD 28250-R Kapil Muni Minor. Consequently, prayer made in the application was accepted in the following manner:-
"The position of the area will be as under:-
Sr. Name of RD of Village Existing Proposed No. Channel outlet GA CCA GA CCA 1 Kapilmuni 28250-R Khark Minor Panduwa 187 187 86 86 2 Batta 37500-R Khark - -Minor Panduwa 101 101 Total 187 187 187 187
It was also observed that the cost of the adjustment of outlets and remodeling of lined water courses, if any, shall be borne by the applicants/beneficiaries. This order of the DCO has been maintained by the higher authorities, namely, SCO and the CCO. The SCO passed the following order:-
"After hearing the arguments of both the parties and consulting the khaka plan, decision dated 02.07.2013 passed by DCO Pundri W/S Division, Kaithal and all other relevant record placed before the Court were examined and it is observed that the respondents are not getting proper canal Kumar Vinod 2013.12.21 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.27592 of 2013 [3] ***** water from the existing outlet RD-28250-R Kapil Muni Minor due to adverse slope in existing water courses. The lined water course existing at site were constructed as per crest levels of outlet RD-34300-R & 37500-R Batta Minor by HSMITC so these water courses sloping from East to West put more resistance to the flow of water when used for carrying canal water cannot be supplied to the fields of respondents which are comparative in higher levels.
As the order dated 02.07.2013 passed by the DCO/Pundri W/S Division, Kaithal is legal & just and based on facts hence the same is upheld and the appeal is dismissed."
The CCO has passed the following order:-
"Arguments of the appellants as well as of the respondents made before me were considered. Khaka plan, the Decision of SCO/BWS Circle Kaithal dated 11.09.2013 and all of the relevant data of the case placed before the Court were examined and it is observed that the spot levels in the proposed chak 37500-R Batta Minor are in the range of 755 to 756.50 and the FSL at outlet 28250- R Kapil Muni Minor is 758.87. No doubt the proposed area is under command from the existing outlet but if we look into the spots levels observed killa wise it is seen that the natural slop of the land is reverse from outlet 28250-R Kapil Muni Minor to outlet 34300-R Batta Minor that is why proper irrigation is not being received to the area of the proposed outlet RD 37500-R Batta Minor.
So far as canal irrigation of the area in question is concerned i.e. 46% against the 121% of the existing outlet which is not sufficient and there is possibility of better irrigation from the proposed outlet 37500-R Batta Minor which is near to the Kumar Vinod 2013.12.21 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.27592 of 2013 [4] ***** area of the respondents. From the perusal of the canal irrigation of outlets RD 34300-L&R Batta Minor it is seen that sufficient canal irrigation is being received. So the contention of the appellants that their irrigation will be reduced if an outlet 37500-R is sanctioned, has no weight because possibility of less irrigation may occur on the tail. So, I find no merit in the appeal hence the same is dismissed."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that proper notice was not given, therefore, they could not put up objection before the DCO.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the record, I am of the considered opinion that the objection now raised has no legs to stand because it has been categorically recorded by the DCO in his order that notice was served by the Canal Patwari of the Halqua under rules. Balbir Singh along with 12 other co-sharers appeared and they did not agree to the proposal of splitting the RD 28250-R Kapil Muni Minor. Thereafter, the order has been passed by the DCO, SCO and the CCO in which I do not find any infirmity. Consequently, the present writ petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
December 16, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE