Tek Ram and others vs The Chief Canal Officer, B.C. Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Chandigarh and others

K. Kannan, J.—The writ petition challenges the order passed by the authorities under the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act of 1974. By the impugned order, the requisition for transfer of irrigation for the lands of respondents 4 to 8 from outlet No.RD-12500-R had been shifted to RD-13100-R. The petitioners contended that the outlet No.RD-13100-R was downstream and by such a shifting, the petitioners would be prejudiced. It appears that the petitioners had filed an appeal against the initial order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, who had allowed the appeal on 28.05.1987. It was held that the shifting could reduce the command in the area situate on the eastern side of the chak and, therefore, irrigation was likely to be affected adversely. Against the said order, a further appeal had been filed by the respondents 4 to 8 before the Chief Canal Officer, who allowed the appeal and upheld the first order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer. It is this order passed by the Chief Canal Officer that is in challenge in the writ petition.

Apart from contending that the petitioners'' land is situate at the higher level, it is not very clear from the contention raised in the petition or the arguments as to how the shifting ordered on the request of respondents 4 to 8 could in any way reduce the command in the area on the eastern side of the chak. It appears even at the time when the writ petition was brought up for interim orders, it was revealed that the outlet had been shifted on 30.11.1987 in terms of the order passed by the Chief Canal Officer. This was, however, denied by the petitioners but the Division Bench had ordered the maintenance of the status quo. If there has been a shifting pursuant to the order in the year 1987, I find no reason to modify the same which could disrupt the status quo especially in a case where the petitioners are not able to point out as to how the shifting had caused any prejudice to the flow of water to their own lands. The order is confirmed and the writ petition challenging the order is dismissed.