Punjab-Haryana High Court
Major Singh And Another vs Sco Bhakra Water Services Circle Sirsa ... on 21 October, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CWP No.10684 of 2011 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
CWP No.10684 of 2011
Date of Decision: Oct 21,2013
Major Singh and another
Petitioners
Vs.
SCO Bhakra Water Services Circle Sirsa and others
-Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mrs.Rupinder Kaur Thind,Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. Sourabh Mohunta, D. A.G, Haryana
Mr.B.S.Mittal,Advocate, for respondent No.4
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:
The petitioners are aggrieved against the orders dated 28.1.2011 and 11.4.2011 passed by D.C.O, Rori, Water Services Circle, Sirsa and Superintending Canal Officr, Bhakra Water Services, Circle, Sirsa.
In brief, respondent No.4 filed an application to the Deputy Collector, Rori Division, Sirsa alleging that his turn of water has been sanctioned at Khata No.6 but there is no irrigation to his area from that water course, whereas there is a pucca water course from the other side adjoining his area for which he prayed for a naka. His application was rejected by respondent No.3 observing that there is no naka at the site on the lined water course and he may apply for sanction of naka at the site from DCO, Rori. The appeal filed by respondent No.4 was allowed by Ram Rikhi 2013.10.24 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.10684 of 2011 2 respondent No.2 observing that water course has been lined on public expenditure by the CADA Department which becomes the public property and any of the shareholders can apply for transfer for the use of such water course for the smooth irrigation of his land. Hence the water opening at point 190/10x1 towards western side is approved at the cost of the appellant and his wari was ordered to be fixed there with usual bharai.
Aggrieved against this order, the petitioners filed further appeal which was dismissed by respondent No.1 on the ground that the present water course has been lined on the Government expenditure to which respondent No.4 was found entitled in the interest of better irrigation due to less water losses in the lined water course. It was further observed that "the plea of the petitioner regarding leaving of his some land on the other side of the water course and his denial for not allowing the respondent to get the water opening in his land is upto some extent convincing. Therefore, the delivery point of the respondent is fixed at point Rect/Killa No. 190/1x9 after the land holding of the petitioner. The decision of the Divisional Canal Officer is modified upto this extent and revision petition is disposed off under Section 55 (6) of the Canal Act accordingly".
Counsel for the petitioners has argued that earlier the water course was in existence at point AB where from respondent No.4 was irrigating his land but in the year 2007, he moved an application for shifting his water course from point AB to CD which has been allowed. Against the said order, no appeal or revision was filed which became final but now again an application has been moved by respondent No.4 for shifting of outlet from point CD to AB without any change of circumstance. Ram Rikhi 2013.10.24 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.10684 of 2011 3 It is argued that under Section 55 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1973, no additional naka can be provided which can be done under Section 17 of the Act.
During the course of hearing, this Court directed D.C.O (Rori) to file affidavit alongwith the site plan depicting the earlier factual aspect as well as the present situation at the site showing the land of the petitioners as well as respondent No.4 in different colours.
In view thereof, affidavit dated 06.4.2013 has been filed by V.K.Jagga, Divisional Canal Officer, Rori Water Services Division, Sirsa, in which he has alleged that earlier wari of respondent No.4 was running on the katcha water course BD in the joint khata which was separated by the Deputy Collector vide his decision dated 12.4.2006. Thereafter, respondent No.4 and his real brother Data Ram filed appeal on 27.7.2006 before the D.C.O to shift wari of their land on the other katcha watercourse shown as point BC, on the plea that their land is not being properly irrigated from the water course BD because taking and delivery point of their wari has not been fixed properly by the Deputy Collector, Rori Water Services Division, Sirsa. Sh. Major Singh opposed this demand for shifting the wari from watercourse BD to watercourse BC at that time, stating that if the wari of respondent No.4 and others is shifted to watercourse BC then he will not be allowed to shift the wari again on the water course BC which was running through his private land. The D.C.O accepted the demand/appeal of respondent No.4 and his real brother Data Ram vide his decision 08.2.2007. Lining of this watercourse was done by CADA Department during the year 2008. Prior to the lining of the branch Ram Rikhi 2013.10.24 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.10684 of 2011 4 watercourse AB BD the wari of respondent No.4 was running on the unlined/katcha water course BC. This BC branch of the water course was dismantled by Krishan Kumar son of Kalu Ram from Point B i.e. 189/25x 219/1 to point 189/16x190/21 in a length of one killa. Aggrieved from this action, Data Ram applied to the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Dabwali Water Services Sub Division, Khuiyan for restoration of the dismantled watercourse under Section 24 of the Canal Act, which was rejected by the then Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Dabwali vide his order dated 03.8.2010 on the ground that another watercourse BD (from point 190/21x219/2 to 190/1x9) lined by the CADA Department on the government expenses is running on the Eastern side of the land holding of the applicant. After this decision of SDCO Dabwali, Water Services Sub Division Khuiyan Malkana, Data Ram got shifted the wari of his Rectangle/Killa No.190/11 & 20 and consolidated it with his another land holding in the same chak. Due to non restoration of the partly dismantled watercourse BC, Bhoop Ram, respondent No.4 was the next aggrieved person, left with no water course for irrigation of his land holding, therefore, he applied for shifting of his wari under Section 55 of the Canal Act on the watercourse BD running on the Eastern side of his land holding as shown on the khaka plan. The appeal/case was heard and decided by the various Canal Authorities. The Superintending Canal Officer is the final authority to decide such cases of warabandi under Section 55 (6) of the Canal Act, who decided to fix the wari of respondent No.4 on the lined/pacca water course BD which has been implemented at site and is being challenged in the present writ petition.
Ram Rikhi 2013.10.24 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.10684 of 2011 5
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record much-less the affidavit of the D.C.O dated 06.4.2013 in which the sequence of events have elaborately been explained, I do not find any illegality in the order under challenge. Hence, this petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
Oct 21,2013 (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
rr Judge
Ram Rikhi
2013.10.24 11:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document