Sadhu Ram vs Superintending Canal Officer, Sirsa

Harjit Singh Bedi, J.—The petitioner is a landowner holding land in village Goriawala, whereas respondent No. 4 is a tenant of the petitioner over 9 acres of land. The petitioner was given irrigation facilities in order to irrigate the land in his possession as well as in the possession of respondent No. 4 who was also given his share of water by the petitioner in proportion to the land that he was occupying. Respondent No. 4, however, moved an application before the Deputy Collector praying that a separate turn of water be given to him for the purpose of irrigating the nine acres of land comprising his tenancy. This application was allowed vide order dated 13.10.1978, Annexure P1 to the petition. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer under Section 55(5) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the ''Act''), but this too was dismissed vide order dated 31.1.1979. Annexure P2 to the petition. The further revisitor taken before the Superintending Canal Officer was also dismissed vide Annexure P3 dated 14.7.1980. The aforementioned annexures have been impugned in this petition.

The case as set out in the pleadings as also at the time of arguments addressed by Mr. P.N. Malkani, learned counsel for the petitioner was that as per the scheme of the Act no separate turn of water could be provided to a tenant on his application as there was no provision to that effect in the Act. He has also urged that the interest of the tenant was well protected under Section 11 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the "1953 Act''), which reads as under :

"Save in proportion to a reduction in the tenancy, if any, landowner shall not be competent to curtail or terminate the supply of canal or use of well water enjoyed by a tenant immediately before the commencement of this Act and a breach of this provision shall constitute a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months and shall be triable by a court not below the rank of a second class Magistrate."

In the reply the stand of the respondents is that section 55 of the Act entitled the tenant to claim a separate turn of water for the land held by him and, as such, the impugned orders were in accordance with law.

It will be apparent that the outcome of this case hinges on the interpretation to be put on section 55(5) of the Act and Section 11 of the 1953 Act. Section 55 of the Act is reproduced below :

"55. Power of the Deputy Collector to order use or distribution of water and settlement of differences

(1) The Deputy Collector may, if in his opinion it is necessary to do so, pass an order as to the use or distribution of water from a watercourse amongst persons in any estate or a group of estates or in any holding or group of holdings in such estate or estates :

Provided that no such order shall be passed by the Deputy Collector without making any inquiry into the matter and without giving a notice to all the persons interested that on a day to be named in such notice, he shall proceed to inquire into the said matter.

(2) When a difference arises between two or more persons in regard to their mutual rights or liabilities in respect of the use, constitution or maintenance of a water course, any such person may apply in writing to the Deputy Collector stating the matter in dispute.

(3) On receipt of an application under subsection (2) the Deputy Collector shall give notice to the other persons interested that, on a day to be named in such notice, he shall proceed to enquire into the said matter and after the inquiry he shall pass an order thereon.

(4) xx xx xx xx xx

(5) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx

(6) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx"

It will be seen from a bare reading of subsection (1) of Section 55 that the Deputy Collector is competent to pass an order as to the distribution or use of water from a watercourse amongst persons in any estate or estates, whereas, sub section (2) provides that whenever a difference arose between two or more persons in regard to their mutual rights or liabilities in respect of the use, construction or maintenance of a watercourse, the Deputy Collector was the person from whom redress could be obtained. the word ''person'' admittedly has not been defined in the Act and must therefore be given a literal and an extended meaning to include within its ambit any person who is using a particular watercourse whether as a landlord or tenant and, if such person is aggrieved on any account while using the water, he would come within the purview of section 55 and would be entitled to move an application for rectification and redress. A tenant would therefore be a person entitled to more an application to have a separate turn of water to irrigate his land. The reliance of the petitioner''s counsel on section 11 of the 1953 Act is misplaced. It is true that section 11 of the Act protects the water, that is, already being supplied to a tenant and makes the creation of an obstacle in this enjoyment, a cognizable offence. This section, however, does not deal with the situation whereby a tenant who is aggrieved by the turn of water that is being made available to him. This grouse can only be rectified by an application under section 55 of the Act. No fault can, therefore, be found with the orders impugned.

For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is without merit and is dismissed as such. No costs.