Balwan Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others

This petition is filed for assailing the order of the Chief Canal

Officer dated 17.06.2017 by which he has allegedly reversed the concurrent

findings recorded by the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending

Canal Officer.

In brief, counsel for the petitioners has argued that the scheme

for providing outlet at RD28183-L Khanda Minor for an area of 244/231

acres was recommended by the Divisional Canal Officer and the case was

sent for prior approval of the Chief Canal Officer because the discharge of

the outlet was less than 0.75Cs. The said order was challenged by

respondent No.6 by way of an appeal before the Superintending Canal

Officer, Yamuna Water Services Circle, Jind but it was dismissed vide order

dated 27.09.2016. Thereafter, respondent No.6 challenged that order by

way of an appeal before the Chief Canal Officer, who has allowed the same

vide his order dated 17.06.2017. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently

argued that the Chief Canal Officer has wrongly recorded the facts. He has

observed that if the head of this outlet is allowed to be shifted from

RD26775-L to RD28183-L Khanda minor, then there would be problem of

digging of new water course to link with the already running water course.

It is further submitted that there is no question of shifting of RD26775-L to

RD28183-L.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after

perusing the record, am of the considered opinion that this argument is

without any substance because when the petitioner appeared before the

Chief Canal Officer along with other co-sharers, he had specifically made a

statement about the shifting of the head of RD26775-L to RD28183-L.

Counsel for the petitioners has not denied the statement made,

by the petitioner anywhere in the writ petition, before the Chief Canal

Officer and just challenged the order of the Chief Canal Officer on the

ground that there was no shifting from RD26775-L to RD28183-L. I do not

agree with the petitioners because of specific statement recorded by the

Chief Canal Officer in the impugned order having been suffered at the

instance of the petitioners which has not been explained anywhere in the

writ petition.

With these observations, I do not find any merit.

Dismissed.