DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dalip Singh and 45 other rightholders of village Balianwali have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the action of the Canal authorities reducing the size of their outlet.

(2.) The petitioners' lands were being irrigated through outlet RD 82295-R for the last more than 60 years. In the year 1963-64, chakbandi in this village was carried out and 346 acres of land were allotted to the Chak of outlet No. RD 82295-R Mandi Minor. It seems that the Canal authorities felt that the commendable area from this outlet having been reduced, there was need to reduce the size of this outlet also. It has been mentioned that the Superintending Canal Officer determined the size of this outlet on the basis of the area to be commanded. He determined that this outlet should have a discharge of 82 cusecs of water. According to the Canal authorities, the discharge from this outlet in fact was 1.33 cusecs of water. Undoubtedly, the discharge from the outlet was more. In order to reduce this discharge of water from this outlet, the Divisional Canal Officer wrote a letter to the Superintending Canal Officer stating therein that during the consolidation operations, the flow of water from outlet RD 82295-R was sanctioned at 44 x .25 (4-1/2" pipe). However, on account of stay order, the water was flowing through a pipe of the width of 6" and the shareholders were receiving more water. So, it was necessary to reduce the size of the outlet so that the water of the outlet could be reduced by 25 per cent. He sought approval of this proposal. The Superintending Canal Officer approved the action proposed to be taken by the Divisional Canal Officer, the Sub Divisional Canal Officer issued a notice to the shareholders stating that they were getting more water than their right and that sanction for reducing the outlet had been received from the Superintending Engineer. He also informed that the size of the outlet would be reduced by 25 per cent after one month of this notice. The notice is dated 8th April, 1968. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have filed this petition.

(3.) Mr. Tahil Singh Mangat, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that the size of an outlet can be reduced only after following the procedure prescribed by Sections 30-A and 30-B of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was incumbent upon the Canal authorities to frame a scheme and invite objections thereto. According to him the reduction of the size of an outlet falls under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 30-A of the Act. Therefore, the framing of a scheme is necessary for effecting any change in the size of an outlet. According to him, the provisions of Section 20 of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case because no change in the alignment of any watercourse was sought to be made by the authorities. On the other hand, Mr. T.S. Gujral, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that a change in the outlet has been made because there was a reduction in the commanded area which was to be irrigated by his outlet.