JOGINDER SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Joginder Singh and others (petitioners) are residents of village Mandhali, Tehsil Mansa, District Bhatinda, and cultivate land in that village. Gajjan Singh etc. respondents 3 to 13, are cultivators of land in village Tahlian in the same Tehsil and District. It is stated at the bar that the boundaries of the two villages are about 3 miles distant from each other. There is a canal minor known as Tahlian Joian Minor having different outlets and along the minor runs a water-course, which, according to the averments of the petitioners and supported by the findings of the Divisional Canal Officer as are to be found in Annexure 'B', has a common weak bank up to tail of the minor, outlet No. R.D. 7490-R, so much so that even one cannot walk on foot on that bank. The petitioners were afraid of mischief by the cultivators of village Tahlian, including respondents 3 to 15, of cutting the minor into the water-course and putting pipes etc. so as to divert the water supply into that water-course and thereby deprive those cultivating at the tail, of the sufficient supply of water. The petitioners' village is at the tail end of the minor. As a matter of fact, their case before the department was that the tail end always remained short of water supply and the only way to remove their grievance was to alter the alignment of water-course of outlet No. R.D. 7490-R shifting its course away from the minor instead of allowing it to run parallel to the same. An application to this effect was made by the petitioners to the Divisional Canal Officer concerned. The Divisional Canal Officer asked the Ziledar of that area to investigate the case and make his recommendations. He supported the cause of the petitioners and so did the Sub-Divisional Officer.

(2.) A draft scheme as envisaged in Section 30-A of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (Act No. VIII of 1873), hereinafter called the Act, was consequently prepared and notices issued under Section 30-B for inviting objections. Both the villages of Mandhali and Tahlian were represented before the Divisional Canal Officer, who after hearing the different view points, took a decision approving the scheme under Section 30-B(2) of the Act whereby the alignment was changed and the water-course (Khal) was to have a different course. A plan Annexure 'A', has been filed with the writ petition showing the change proposed by the Divisional Canal Officer.

(3.) Mal Singh respondent and others preferred an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala Circle, Irrigation Branch, Patiala, against the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer. The appeal was dismissed on 1st April. 1968, without going into its merits on the short ground that it was barred by time. The petitioners came to this Court in Civil Writ 1917 of 1968 which was accepted by P. C. Jain, J. on 6th September, 1968, and the order of the Superintending Canal Officer dismissing the appeal quashed. He was directed to give a fresh decision on merits.