CHUHAR SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chuhar Singh and others have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the Superintending Canal Officer, respondent No. 1, dated 28th December, 1967 (copy Annexure 'D' to the petition).

(2.) Before I deal with the merits of the controversy, it will be proper to narrate certain admitted facts on which there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners and respondent No. 3 are residents of village Unispur but they own lands in village Kalsi, Tehsil and District Karnal. In the year 1961, respondent No. 3 applied for providing a syphon of the six of 6" x 6" below watercourse of tube-well No. 1-F, to the Superintending Engineer, Tubewell Circle, Ambala. The matter was investigated by the Superintending Engineer and after full deliberations it was found by him that providing of a syphon would not be a satisfactory solutions. In the alternative it was suggested by the Superintending Engineer that respondent No. 3 should construct a link drain of the estimated length of 2000 feet. Copy of the order of the Superintending Engineer dated 4th January, 1962, is Annexure 'A' to the petition. It seems that respondent No. 3 did not comply with the order of the Superintending Engineer and kept quiet for five years. Thereafter again on 18th July, 1967 he made an application to the Divisional Canal Officer for providing 6" x 6" pucca outlet below watercourse of tube-well No. 1-F in village Kalsi. The application was considered by the Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division No. 1, Karnal, who relying on the earlier decision of the Superintending Engineer, rejected the same. It was further said by the Executive Engineer, that in case respondent No. 3 so desired, he could represent the case to the Superintending Engineer, Ambala Bhakra Canal Circle, Chandigarh. Copy of the order of the Executive Engineer, dated 7th November, 1967, is Annexure 'B' to the petition.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Executive Engineer, dated 7th November, 1967, respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer. The grounds of appeal are attached with the petition as Annexure 'C'. It is not disputed that the petitioners were not made parties by respondent No. 3 in the appeal, but the fact remains that for the date of hearing notice was issued to the petitioners, by the Superintending Canal Officer. The matter was taken up finally by the Superintending Canal Officer who vide his order dated 28th December, 1967, held that "the tubewell watercourse in a length of 20' would pass underground below the natural surface level through hume pipe so as to restore the natural conditions. On either end of the hume pipe face walls should be constructed to allow the necessary working head to make the watercourse function properly. Both parties agreed to this proposal and as such the decision was announced at site. To be implemented with immediate effect." (copy Annexure 'D' to the petition). As earlier observed, it is the legality and correctness of this order of the Superintending Canal Officer, which has been challenged by way of this petition.