Jagtar Singh And Oth... v. Superintending Canal...

Paramjeet Singh, J.

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 17.09.2009 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. 2 - Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division, Abohar, and order dated 30.06.2010 (Annexure P/3) passed respondent No. 1 - Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur, whereby the land of the petitioners has been ordered to be transferred from outlet No. 167325-L and outlet No. 171875-L Lambi Rajbaha to outlet No. 169430-L Lambi Rajbaha under the provisions of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 are having agricultural land situated in Village Patti Sadiq in three tuks shown in the site plan (Annexure P/1) as Mark A, B and C and petitioner No. 7 is having land as Mark D in the site plan (Annexure P/1). The land Mark A, B and D is being irrigated from outlet No. 167325-L Lambi Rajbaha; whereas land Mark C is being irrigated from outlet No. 171875-L Lambi Rajbaha. Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 moved an application to the Canal Authorities for splitting of outlet No. 167325-L and outlet No. 171875-L Lambi Rajbaha and prayed that due to excess area on the said outlets, their land is not being properly irrigated, therefore, their land be excluded from those outlets and new outlet be sanctioned and their land be included in the new outlet. On the application of the private respondent Nos. 3 to 11, the Sub Divisional Officer, after investigation with the help of the field staff, sent a report to the Divisional Canal Officer with a recommendation to sanction new outlet. The Divisional Canal Officer published the scheme and issued notices to the affected persons through Ziledar of the concerned circle. The respective shareholders appeared and raised objections.

After hearing the objections, the Divisional Canal Officer sent the case to the Ziledar, Azimgarh and sought report. Ziledar, Azimgarh again recorded the statements of all the shareholders and recommended that instead of new outlet No. 169270-L, outlet No. 169430-L Lambi Rajbaha be sanctioned and further recommended that by excluding area to the extent of 255.81 acre from outlet No. 1678325-L Lambi Rajbaha and 22.36 acres from outlet No. 171875-L Lambi Rajbaha totaling 278.17 (wrongly written as 277.57) acres, a new outlet be sanctioned. The objectors were specifically asked that if any shareholder does not want add his area in the new outlet, then he can get the same excluded by making a statement. The shareholders made a statement that area measuring 12.45 acres comprised in 78M//17(7-16), 18/1 (3-12), 118M//17/2(5-3), 23(1-4), 24 (8-0), 136M//17(4-12), 18/1 (3-0), 13/2 (3-16), 11 (6-15), 12/2 (3-16), 19 (8-0), 147M//15(8-0), 58M//11/2(0-17), 12/1 (0-15), 12/2 (4-4), 13(0-9), 14 (7-18), 18/2 (2-16) be excluded from outlet No. 169430-L Lambi Rajbaha and be included in outlet No. 167325-L Lambi Rajbaha. This demand of the shareholder was accepted by the Divisional Canal Officer. The Divisional Canal Officer came to the conclusion that demand of the private respondents (applicants before him) for splitting the outlet is accepted and sanctioned new outlet No. 169430-L Lambi Rajbaha. The area measuring 12.45 acres which was excluded from the new outlet was again included in the old outlet No. 167325-L. Accordingly, amended scheme was sanctioned and Form ‘A’ was prepared vide order dated 17.09.2009 (Annexure P/2).

Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Superintending Canal Officer and demanded that with the sanction of new outlet, their area shall be bifurcated at 2-3 places and their irrigation shall be adversely affected. The area falling in the outlet No. 171895-L Lambi Rajbaha is being irrigated properly from the existing outlet and this has been wrongly shifted into new outlet which is causing loss to them. Moreover, the new outlet will be at a distance from their area. Another watercourse will be required to be reconstructed which will create problem. The Superintending Canal Officer, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.06.2010 (Annexure P/3). Hence, this writ petition.

Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed separate written statements.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the area is being irrigated properly from the earlier outlet No. 167325-L and 171875-L Lambi Rajbaha. So far as the area Mark A, B and D is concerned it cannot be properly irrigated from outlet No. 169430-L.

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, same is not sustainable at all. The outlet No. 169430-L itself starts from the field of the petitioners; whereas, the distance of the earlier outlet No. 167325-L is more. The irrigation from outlet No. 169430-L of land shown as Mark A, D and B will be more feasible and effective, will be way of flow. Land shown at Mark A and D itself is in the mouth of outlet No. 169430-L. The Canal Authorities being expert have rightly shifted the land of the petitioners shown at Mark A, D and B on the new outlet No. 169430-L.

The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the land shown at Mark ‘C’ is at long distance from outlet No. 169430-L and it is being irrigated properly from outlet No. 171875-L. The perusal of the site plan showing the watercourse indicates that the land Mark C can be properly irrigated from outlet No. 171875-L. It appears that this land has been wrongly shifting to the outlet No. 169430-L. The distance of land shown at Mark C is much more and it will be by way of reverse irrigation as firstly the water will run in watercourse to irrigate the land Mark A, D then Mark B, it will revert back; Whereas the irrigation from outlet No. 171875-L is straight. This land is nearer to the outlet No. 171875-L.

In view of the above, orders of the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer vide which area from outlet No. 171875-L has been shifted to outlet No. 169430-L is set aside; the land at Mark ‘C’ excluded will remain in the outlet No. 171875-L. The orders of the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer with regard to shifting of the area shown at Mark A, B, D are maintained. It has rightly been shifted to outlet No. 169430-L.

The writ petition is partly allowed in the above terms. Costs made easy.