KEHAR SINGH Vs. CHIEF CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contest is between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 7. It relates to the amalgamation of two outlets for irrigation of their respective lands. The case has a long history. However, in the present petition the issue is simple. Only facts relevant for the decision of the dispute are being noticed.

(2.) THE Superintending Canal Officer, Bhiwani, had passed an order dated July 8, 1993. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were aggrieved by this order. They filed an appeal before the Chief Canal Officer. It was heard and decided vide order dated February 7, 1995. A copy of this order is at Annexure P-8 with the writ petition. The case was remanded to the Superintending Canal Officer with a direction that "actual facts be verified according to the present situation at site regarding No. of tubewells installed in the chak of O/L RD 57800-L. Estimated cost of remodelling of lined water course in the light of your decision dated 8-7-93 and an affidavit from the beneficiaries be obtained regarding payment of the same and on that ground fresh No Objection Certificate be obtained from the HSMITC Deptt.". On remand, the Superintending Canal Officer decided the matter vide order dated January 20, 1998. He took the view that the water course "runs blindly from the fields of the outlet RD 57800-L Dadri Disty. i.e. from the holdings of the appellant (respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in this petition). If the chak of the outlet RD-57800-L is amalgamated with the chak of outlet RD-57600-L then there is every possibility of theft of water .... in my opinion I do not find any justification in amalgamating both chaks ...". The present petitioner was not satisfied with this order. He appealed. His appeal was dismissed by the Chief Canal Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the Superintending Canal Officer and the Chief Canal Officer, copies of which are on record as Annexures P9 and P11, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(3.) ON a perusal of the order of the Chief Canal Officer, it is clear that the Superintending Canal Officer had been directed to verify the factual position with regard to the number of tubewells. He had also to assess the cost of remodelling of the lined water course etc. and obtain a No Objection Certificate from the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation. While passing the impugned order dated January 20, 1998 the Superintending Canal Officer did not comply with these directions. Thus, the facts which are required to be examined were not examined. This aspect of the matter has not even been considered by the Chief Canal Officer.