MAM RAJ Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioners are the residents of village Gudha, Tehsil and District Karnal. They own land in villages Gudha and Chakda which are adjoining villages. It is alleged that the shareholders of village Rasina, respondent Nos. 3 to 8 made an application before the Divisional Canal Officer, respondent No. 2, for making provision of a new outlet at RD 47700-R, for village Rasina. He passed an order dated September 13, 1973, providing alignment for the outlet taken out at RD 47700-R and supplied water to village Rasina. The petitioners went up in appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer who affirmed the order of Divisional Canal Officer and dismissed the same. They have come up in writ petition, challenging the aforesaid order, to this Court.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Divisional Canal Officer contravened the provisions of section 30-B of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as he did not give adequate opportunity to the petitioners to raise objections against the bifurcation and alignment of the watercourse. He further submits that in case the petitioners had been given an opportunity to raise objections at the time of bifurcation, they would have been able to convince that it was not for the benefit of irrigation. According to the counsel, the officers below have also violated the principles of natural justice.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given a thoughtful consideration to their arguments. I, however, regret my inability to accept the same. The petitioners are before this Court in writ proceedings. They can challenge the order of the appellate authority on the grounds which they had taken before it. I have carefully gone through the order of the Superintending Canal Officer. There they challenged the order of the Divisional Canal Officer on two grounds, namely, that the watercourse be not allowed through their land as they would suffer immensely and secondly that their watercourses from the tubewells installed in their fields would be disrupted if the watercourses from the tubewells installed in their fields would be disrupted if the watercourse was approved. The Superintending Canal Officer took into consideration both the objections and rejected them. He inter alia stated that they would be paid all the cost of land which was coming under the watercourse. Regarding the violation of the principles of natural justice, he said that the notices were duly served on them and if they did not raise objections, the scheme could not be set aside on this ground. In my view the reasons given by him are forceful and do not require interference.