AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of instant order, I intend to dispose off the afore-captioned three writ petitions as they involve common question of law in the background of similar facts.
The question raised in the present writ petitions is:
“Whether the allowing of the application by the Canal in irrigation boundaries and thus was required to be dealt with as per the procedure contemplated under Rule 101 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1976 Rules’?
Respondents No.4 and 5 filed an application for transfer of area from one outlet to the tail of other minor.
The Divisional Canal Officer published the scheme. After inviting objections, DCO approved the scheme under Section 18(2) of the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act 29 of 1974 replying upon the report submitted by the Field Staff, vide order dated 10.04.2012. The petitioner challenged the order before Superintending Canal Officer. Superintending Canal Officer dismissed the appeal vide order dated 23.08.2013.
Still aggrieved, the petitioner(s) approached Chief Canal Officer.
The matter was remanded for a fresh decision by the Superintending Canal Officer. Superintending Canal Officer further remanded the matter to be decided afresh by the Divisional Canal Officer. Divisional Canal Officer again decided the issue in favour of the respondents vide order dated 22.08.2016 which further stands affirmed by the Superintending Canal Officer and the Chief Canal Officer.
Mr. Thind refers to order dated 26.02.2014 (Annexure P-5) to submit that despite there being observation made by the Superintending Canal Officer holding that the land in question is better commandable from the existing source as part thereof is already being irrigated therefrom and the proposed channel exceeds sanctioned capacity, the Canal Authorities have approved the plan without meeting the said reasoning. The order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer thus being in teeth of the remand order, ought not have been affirmed by the authorities. Mr. Thind further submits that the same amounts to change in the irrigation boundaries and the same could not have been effectuated without prior sanction of the Chief Canal Officer. There being no approval from the Chief Canal Officer, the whole process is vitiated.
Per contra, Mr. Godara counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 would submit that it is a simple case of shifting of area from one outlet to the tail of other minor and thus it does not amount to change in the boundaries of irrigation of any of the canal and thus Rule 101 of 1974 Rules was not required to be followed. The order is based upon the report of the Field Staff which has been placed on record as Annexure A-1 and thus there is no perversity in the orders passed by the Canal Authorities.
Mr. Mulwani supports the contention raised by Mr. Godara and submits that there was no requirement to follow Rule 101 of 1974 Rules. The order, based upon the report of the Field Staff, is based upon the factual situation on the spot. He submits that the Canal Authorities being the best judge of the situation prevalent on the spot and there being no illegality in the orders passed, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case.
In order to appreciate the contention raised by Mr. Thind, it will be apt to peruse Section 101 of 1976 Rules, which reads as under:
Rule 101 : Change in irrigation boundaries.
No change shall be made in the irrigation boundary of a canal project without the prior sanction of the Chief Canal Officer, irrespective of whether the change refers to the exclusion of an area already included within the irrigation boundary or to the inclusion of a new area.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the reliance placed by Mr. Thind upon Rule 101, is totally misplaced and misconceived. By transferring land from outlet of one minor to the tail of other minor, the same does not amount to change in the irrigation boundaries as is the situation contemplated under Rule 101. Hence, counsel for the respondent are right in contending that there was no requirement of approval from Chief Canal Officer at the time of entertaining the present application.
The issue flagged by Superintending Canal Officer in his order dated 26.02.2014 w.r.t. the land in question being better commandable from the existing source, also is against the facts in view of the Spot Inspection Report placed on record as Annexure A-1. The Sub Divisional Canal Officer has relied upon the report of Ziledar Odhan, who based his report on the statements of the concerned shareholders and the map prepared from the Patwari.
The only issue that remains is:
“Whether by adding the area of the respondents to outlet in the present minor, i.e., tail Gurusar Minor, the same has exceeded the sanctioned capacity or not?”
Mr. Mulwani on instructions from Sh. Ravi Kumar, Renvenue Clerk, Sirsa, who is present in person, submits that after the area was transferred the sanctioned capacity has been enhanced to meet the demand of irrigation by 4%.
In view thereof, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the well reasoned orders passed by the Authorities.
Resultantly, finding no reason to interfere in the present writ petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed.
Needless to say, the Canal Authorities shall ensure that the petitioners should not suffer on account of addition of the area of the respondents to the minor canal.
A copy of this order be kept on the files of other connected cases.