AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 03.02.2021 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.1-Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala Circle, IB Circle, Patiala.
Petitioners filed an application stating that outlet from where the lands of the petitioners are being jointly irrigated was too far from the area. Owing to paucity of water, the petitioners were suffering and were not able to utilize their lands to its optimal capacity.
Applicants sought splitting of outlet No. 119980/L and for sanctioning of a new outlet at 121675/L. Division Canal officer vide order dated 01.03.2017 (Annexure P-7) allowed the application filed by the applicants accepting recommendations made by Sub Division Officer, Harigarh and after accepting command statement of AE Dhanola. He Ordered installation of new outlet No.121675/L by splitting outlet No.119980/L.
Order was challenged before Superintendent Canal Officer by the private respondents. Superintendent Canal Officer has accepted the appeal and has reversed the order passed by Division Canal Officer by observing as under:-
“After examining above, outlet no 119980/left Rajwaha Dhanola is for 913/806 acre area. Chak of outlet is in shape of hand, from which water courses and branches are going in four directions. Government has made pucca water course of this outlet in 2015-16 for 913/806 area. Now by splitting of outlet the discharge will remain half, due to which level of water in pucca water courses will decrease and the land will not be irrigated properly. By installation of new outlet, the water courses from both outlets will have to be designed and constructed again. In this way the amount spent by government in lining (pucca) the water courses will go waste. The average age of the water course lined (pucca) by government is considered 25 years, and government cannot make pucca water course gain before this limit. While passing the order for splitting the outlet Division Canal Officer should have examined these things, which has not been done. As such order dated 1.3.2017 passed by Division Canal Officer is set aside and the appeal of the appellant is allowed. This order is passed u/s 30-B(3) of amended Canal and Drainage Act 8 of 1873. Both parties be informed about the order because this order was reserved on 17.12.2020 date of hearing.”
Having considered the impugned order as well as the records with the able assistance of Mr. Sharma and State counsel, this Court finds that Appellate Authority while accepting the appeal has totally bye-passed the command statement and field inspection report and has ignored the necessity of new outlet projected by the petitioners which found favour with the field authorities.
In view of above, this Court finds that order passed by the Appellate Authority deserves to be set aside and matter needs to be remanded back to Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala for fresh decision after taking into consideration recommendations made by field staff, inspection report and the command statement. Parties shall appear before the concerned authority on 07.09.2026 who shall pass the fresh order within a period of 03 months.
Consequently, present petition is disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.