Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwant Singh And Ors vs Superintending Canal Officer And Ors on 21 October, 2009
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition 16052 of 2009
Date of decision: 21.10.2009
Balwant Singh and ors ...Petitioners
Versus
Superintending Canal Officer and ors ...Respondents
Present: Mr SPS Tinna, Advocate for the petitioners.
S.S. SARON, J.
This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 14.12.2007 (P2) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur (respondent-1) and the order dated 20.4.2007 (P1) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division (respondent-2).
The respondents No.4 to 7 filed an application before the Divisional Canal Officer (respondent No.2) for splitting outlet No.10400L Dhaba Minor and outlet No.15650TL Dhaba Minor and for carving out a new outlet at Burji No.12160TL Dhaba Minor. The respondent No.2 marked the application to the Ziledar and SDO concerned for submitting a report. A report was prepared by the Ziledar and then it was sent to SDO Abohar who prepared the case and sent it to the Divisonal Canal Officer (respondent No.2). The petitioners filed their objections before respondent No.2. It was stated by the petitioners that they do not want their areas to be transferred to the new outlet and they want their area to be kept with the old CWP 16052 of 2009 2 outlets. However, respondent No.2 after perusing the record and the common statement rejected the claim of the petitioners and ordered the splitting of two outlets bearing No.10400L Dhaba Minor and outlet No.15650TL Dhaba Minor. According to the petitioners, their genuine demand was rejected and their area was included in the new outlet in terms of the order dated 20.04.2007 (Annexure P-1). The petitioners filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer (respondent No.1). It was submitted by the petitioners that they would not get sufficient irrigation from the proposed outlet and, therefore, their area be not included in the proposed outlet and it be kept in the old outlets. It is during the pendency of the appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer (respondent No.1) that both the parties compromised the matter and the case was not contested on merit. The Superintending Canal Officer (respondent No.1) passed an order dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P-2) on the basis of the compromise. In terms of the compromise between the parties, the area of the petitioners for irrigation was not to be included in the new outlet; besides, respondents No.4 to 7 were to make arrangement for the watercourse themselves. It was settled between the parties that respondents No.4 to 7 will not ask for a watercourse from the petitioners rather they will make arrangement of the watercourse themselves. In terms of the said compromise, both the parties settled their dispute. The actual possession as existing at the spot is enumerated in terms of the site plan (Annexure P-3). Thereafter no party raised any objection and the authorities prepared their report to implement the order dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P-2). The petitioners, however, were surprised when they came to know that respondents No.4 to 7 were trying to get the order dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P-2) implemented in connivance CWP 16052 of 2009 3 with the Canal Authorities without getting a new watercourse constructed. The petitioners came to know about this when the Ziledar reached the village for preparing a 'Farad'. The petitioners, therefore, are challenging this order because it is alleged that respondents No.4 to 7 are playing fraud and they were not constructing the watercourse themselves from their own land and later they want to use the watercourse of the petitioners which is contrary to the compromise. Therefore, the petitioners are challenging the orders dated 20.07.2007 (Annexure P-1) and 14.12.2007 (Annexure P-2).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Canal Authorities have prepared the 'Farad' for creating a new outlet, but the same has not been implemented till date. In case Canal Authorities are preparing the 'Warabandi' on the old watercourse, it is submitted the same is against the order (Annexure P-2).
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the record, it may be noticed that the order dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P-2) is an order that has been passed on consent of both the parties. Therefore, evidently, no ground is made out for setting aside the said order. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Canal Authorities have prepared a 'Farad' regarding creation of new outlet but the same has not been implemented till date and the case is fixed for tomorrow.
It may be noticed that respondents-4 to 7 were share-holders for irrigating their field from oulet No.10400L Dhaba Minor and outlet No.15650TL Dhaba Minor. They submitted an application before the Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division (respondent-2) for splitting the said outlet and carving out a new outlet at Burji No.12160PL Dhaba Minor. In terms of the consent order passed on 14.12.2007 (Annexure P-2), CWP 16052 of 2009 4 it was agreed that the new outlet be carved out provided the area of the petitioners for the purpose of irrigation be kept with the earlier outlet i.e. outlet No.10400L Dhaba Minor and outlet No.15650TL Dhaba Minor. This was agreed to by respondents-4 to 7 and the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Circle, Ferozepur passed the order dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P-2). The apprehension of the petitioners is with regard to the implementation of the order. It is submitted that the Canal Authorities are preparing a Warabandi with respect to the old watercourse, which is against the order (Annexure P2). The petitioners, it is submitted, had approached the authorities, however, the matter is now pending before the Deputy Collector for tomorrow i.e. 22.10.2009.
It may be noticed that the order dated 14.12.2007 (P2) is being implemented by the Canal Authorities. There is nothing on record to show that the Canal Authorities are preparing the Warabandi on the old watercourse. In case any order which affects the rights of the petitioners is passed, they would have remedy in accordance with law. To entertain a writ petition merely on the allegation that the Canal Authorities are likely to pass an order which would affect the rights of the petitioners would be wholly improper.
In the circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
20.10.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE