Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Singh vs The Chief Canal Officer & Ors on 6 August, 2024
CWP-7250-2000 (O&M) -1-
201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CWP-7250-2000 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.08.2024
Baljit Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Canal Officer, Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present : Mr. R.S. Bains, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Tahar Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
***
HARSH BUNGER, J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner (Baljit Singh) has filed the instant Writ Petition under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in the
nature of Certiorari for setting aside the order dated 20.06.1994, passed by
the learned District Canal Officer, Rohtak (Annexure P-1) and also the order
dated 01.12.1999, passed by the learned Chief Canal Officer, Haryana
(Annexure P-3).
1.1 A further prayer has been made seeking issuance of writ in the
nature of Mandamus for directing respondents No.1 to 3 not to shift 6/6
acres of land of respondents No.4 to 7 from outlet No. RD 11847/R to outlet
No. RD 9486/R Ismaila Rajwaha, Village Kalawar.
authenticity of this document/judgment
CWP-7250-2000 (O&M) -2-
2. Briefly, respondents No.4 to 7 being the shareholders of outlet
No. RD 11847/R Ismaila Minor distributory sought to get their area of 6/6
acres transferred from outlet No. RD 11847/R to outlet No. RD 9486/R. The
said transfer was sought on the plea that their area was not getting proper
irrigation from the present outlet as the outlet was on the down stream and
their area was on much higher level, therefore the flow of water is on the
reverse side, on account of which they have to irrigate their fields with the
help of Jhalars. It was claimed that if their area is transferred to outlet
No. RD 9486/R, their field will get flow irrigation and the same would also
be nearer to the outlet. It was further submitted that they were ready to bear
the expenses incurred by the Government in shifting the outlet from RD
11847/R to RD 9486/R.
2.1 It appears that a scheme was prepared under the Haryana Canal
and Drainage Act, 1974 (in short 'the 1974 Act') and the objections were
invited after giving notice of 21 days. The statements of shareholders of
outlet No. RD 9486/R Ismaila Minor, Karor and Village Bhambhewa were
recorded, who stated that the area measuring 6/6 acres be not included in the
chak of their outlet and in case the same was done, the same would reduce
their water as the size of the outlet will not be increased. Some shareholders
also objected that the area be not shifted to their outlet as they were not
agreeable to the same.
3. The District Canal Officer, Rohtak after considering the
site plan, scheme, contours and also the statements made by
applicants-respondents No.4 to 7 and also the petitioner herein, concluded
that the demand raised by respondents No.4 to 7 was justified in the interest
of better and increased irrigation, accordingly, he permitted the transfer of
authenticity of this document/judgment
CWP-7250-2000 (O&M) -3-
area measuring 6/6 acres comprised in 113/9 equivalent to 44 kanals 7
marlas from the outlet No. RD 11847-R to outlet No. RD 9486/R Ismaila
Minor under Section 18 (2) of the 1974 Act.
4. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid order (Annexure P-1), the
present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Superintending Canal
Officer, Rohtak, who vide its order dated 08.08.1995 (Annexure P-2) set
aside the order passed by the learned District Canal Officer.
5. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 08.08.1995
(Annexure P-2), respondents No.4 to 7 preferred an appeal before the
learned Chief Canal Officer, Haryana, who vide its order dated 01.12.1999
(Annexure P-3) allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the
Superintending Canal Officer, Haryana by observing as under:
"Revenue missal, Khakha plan and other relevant record
produced in the court examined. Arguments of both the parties
heard and properly considered. The plea of the appellants that
his 6/6 acres area is near to the chak of outlet RD 9486/R
Ismaila Disty. and his irrigation will improve if this area is
transferred from outlet RD 11847/R to 9486/R Ismaila Disty.
has a merit. The Zilledar present at the time of hearing also
confirmed the fact that the irrigation is less from the existing
source. The plea of the respondents that their Wari will reduce
and the levels of the lands are the same has no weight because
the irrigation in 6/6 acres area of the appellant will certainly
improve being near to the chak of outlet RD 9486/R Ismaila
Disty. It seems that the opposition is only for the sake of
opposition. Keeping the above facts in view the appeal of the
appellant is accepted and S.C.O. YWS Circle, Rohtak decision
dated 3.5.95 is set aside. Decision given on 1.12.99 and the
parties be informed accordingly."
6. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the
authenticity of this document/judgment
CWP-7250-2000 (O&M) -4-
instant Writ Petition before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
orders are liable to be set aside being contrary to the provisions of law. It is
submitted that the Divisional Canal Officer had prepared a defective
scheme and no reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to all the
share-holders. It is next submitted that the existing outlet at RD 11847/R is
providing proper irrigation to all its share-holders and in case the area of the
respondents No.4 to 7 is shifted to the new outlet- RD 9486/R then, the
warabandi of all the share-holders would be adversely affected as the size of
the outlet remains the same and therefore the irrigation prospect of the
petitioner would be hampered. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned
orders be set aside and appropriate direction be issued for not shifting 6/6
acres of land of respondents No.4 to 7 from outlet RD 11847/R to RD
9486/R.
8. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that the shifting
of area of respondents No.4 to 7 has been allowed keeping in view the
position existing at the spot and in the interest of better and increased
irrigation. Therefore, it is submitted that no interference is required to be
made in the impugned orders and prayer for dismissal of the Writ Petition
has been made.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the paper book with their able assistance.
10. In the present case, it is borne out from the impugned order
(Annexure P-1) that upon following the process, the shifting of the area from
outlet RD 11847/R to RD 9486/R was ordered under Section 18 (2) of the
authenticity of this document/judgment
CWP-7250-2000 (O&M) -5-
1974 Act.
10.1 Further, from a perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-1)
it is apparent that the Canal Authorities have permitted shifting of 6/6 acres
of land of respondents No.4 to 7 from outlet RD 11847/R to RD 9486/R,
considering the following:
(i) The existing outlet was in the downstream and the area of
the respondents No.4 to 7 was on the higher level, therefore the
flow of water was on the reverse side, on account of which, the
fields were being irrigated with the help of jhalars.
(ii) If the area of respondents No.4 to 7 is transferred to outlet
RD 9486/R then, their fields will get flow irrigation and it will
be nearer to the outlet.
(iii) The demand raised by respondents No.4 to 7 was
considered justified in the interest of better and increased
irrigation.
10.2 Furthermore, before the Chief Canal Officer, the concerned
Ziledar confirmed the fact that the irrigation to the area of respondents No.4
to 7 was less from the existing source.
10.3 In Sham Sunder v. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur,
2001(4) RCR (Civil) 35; a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:-
"5. Even otherwise, we find no ground to interfere. The Canal
Authorities are the best judges for the situation at the spot. If on
a consideration of the matter it has been found that the fields of
the petitioner can be properly irrigated from the existing outlet,
this court cannot interfere in proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution unless it is shown that the order is patently
illegal and arbitrary. Nothing of the sort has been pointed
out..."
authenticity of this document/judgment
CWP-7250-2000 (O&M) -6-
10.4 In Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(67) RCR (Civil)
760; a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:-
"...We are of the opinion that the matter of transfer of an area
from one outlet to another by the canal authorities should be
seldom interfered with in the writ jurisdiction, particularly
when the canal authorities had taken the decision after hearing
the interested parties and in the interest of better irrigation, and
also considering that while making such transfer, the maximum
land will be properly irrigated..."
11. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, once
the canal authorities upon consideration of the matter and having examined
all technical aspects and coming to a conclusion that shifting of area of
respondents No.4 to 7 from outlet RD 11847/R to RD 9486/R would be in
the interest of better irrigation, it would not be in the fitness of things for this
court to substitute the said conclusion. Furthermore, it has not been pointed
out as to how the impugned orders are patently illegal or arbitrary.
Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be faulted with.
12. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the
present Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
13. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
06.08.2024 (HARSH BUNGER)
Himani JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
authenticity of this document/judgment
