AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ved Singh and others ...... Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7.
**** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
By way of present writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by Chief Canal Officer, YWS (North) Irrigation & Water Resources Department, Haryana whereby the order passed by the authorities below has been reversed allowing the application filed by private respondents to transfer their area from one outlet to another.
Private respondents filed application for transfer of 08.50/08.50 acres of land from outlet No.RD169723/L Sunder Sub Branch to outlet RD166928/L Sunder Sub Branch. Divisional Canal Officer vide order dated 06.12.2021 rejected the application observing as under:-
“xx xx Decision - Revenue record i.e Khakaplan has been examined. DINESH KUMAR Statement of the present shareholders have also been considered. From the perusal of Khakaplan and after considering the statement of the present shareholders, it has been found that Water course of both the outlets are lined according to their design discharge. Maximum shareholders of proposed outlet RD 166928/L Sunder Sub Branch are opposing the Proposal/transfer of 8.50/8.50 acres area from outlet RD 169723/L Sunder Sub Branch to outlet RD 166928/L Sunder Sub Branch. Irrigation of proposed area is 134% in an average. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts demand of the applicants for transfer of 8.50/8.50 acres area from outlet RD 169723/L Sunder Sub Branch to outlet RD 166928/L Sunder Sub Branch does not seem as genuine. Hence proposal of transfer of 8.50/8.50 acres area from outlet RD 169723 Sunder Sub Branch to outlet RD 166928/L. Sunder Sub Branch is hereby rejected under Section 18(2) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act 29 of 1974.”
Dissatisfied, private respondents filed appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer. The same was also rejected vide order dated 16.02.2022 observing as under:-
“xx xx Decision - Revenue records, appeal map and other records presented in the court were observed, the statements of the litigants and defendants, who appeared in the court were considered. After seeing the appeal map (blueprint plan) and irrigation data and considering the statements of the present stakeholders, it was found that the 3-year average irrigation of the proposed area is 8.50/8.50 acres is of 190%, which is more than the capacity of the Yamuna canal. Most of the stake holders of Outlet No. 166928/L Sundar Sub Branch are opposing the transfer of area. Keeping in view the above facts, the appeal of the appellants to change 8.50/8.50 acres of land from Outlet No. 169723/L Sundar Sub Branch to Outlet No. 166928/L Sundar Sub Branch does not seem appropriate. Therefore, under the power given in section 20 (1) of Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 29 of 1974, the appeal of the appellants is rejected and the decision of Divisional Canal Officer, Bhiwani water services Mandal, Bhiwani is restored. The decision should be informed to all concerned stakeholders DINESH KUMAR
as per rules.”
Further appeal was preferred before the Chief Canal Officer who has allowed the appeal reversing the orders passed by the authorities below after recording following findings:-
“xx xx The decision pronounced by the Superintending Canal Officer, YWS Circle Bhiwani dated 16.09.2022 and relevant record placed before the court were examined carefully. It has been observed that 08.50/08.50 acres area of the appellants falls in the chak of outlet RD 169723/L Sunder Sub Branch. The area of the appellants is not getting proper irrigation at site in the chak existing outlet RD 169723/L Sunder Sub Branch. Every irrigator has right to get his area transferred from the chak of one outlet to the chak of another outlet where the better chances of irrigation are available. Further it has been observed that a lined water course of the proposed outer RD 166928/L Sunder Sub Branch is running at site near the area in question of the appellants. The appellants are irrigating their area through kacha water course in the chak of existing outlet RD 169723/L Sunder Sub Branch. The proposed outlet RD 166928/L Sunder Sub Branch is a better source of irrigation to the area in question of the appellants.
In view of the facts as stated above the demand of the appellants to get their area in question 08.50/08:50 acres transferred from the chak of outlet RD 169723/L Sunder Sub Branch to the chak of outlet RD 166928/L Sunder Sub Branch is considered as genuine.”
Having heard counsel for the parties and after carefully perusing the records of the case, this Court finds that though it is settled law that the Writ Courts need not interfere in the order of transfer of area from one outlet to another, however in the present case, appellate authority has reversed the orders passed by the authorities below without even meeting the reasoning recorded by the authorities below.
As per settled law, appellate authority while reversing DINESH KUMAR finding recorded by the authorities below is required to record reasons substituting its own finding with those of the authorities below. The impugned order having been passed without meeting the reasoning recorded by the authorities below, this Court finds that the same cannot be sustained, being perverse.
In view of above, the present writ petition is allowed. Order dated 09.06.2023 is hereby set aside. However, matter is remanded to Chief Canal Officer, YWS (North) Irrigation and Water Resources Department-respondent No.5 to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law within a period of 02 months from the date the parties appear before him.
Parties are directed to appear before respondent No.5 on 30.09.2026.
Needless to say, nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the appellate authority shall decide the appeal without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE 21.08.2026 Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No