RANGI Vs. CHIEF CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution a prayer has been made for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16th November, 1987 passed by the Chief Canal Officer/B.C. Haryana, by which he has found that the scheme for splitting chak outlet RD 57160-R is technically sound and feasible and the majority of shareholders have demanded for its splitting.

(2.) Petitioners Rangi and Fakiria are the right-holders of village Kurar, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind, in the State of Haryana. Their lands are being irrigated by outlet RD-57160-R Dhamtan Disty, for the last 50 years. In 1986, some residents approached the Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana for the splitting of outlet No. RD-57160-R but the demand was rejected as the same was not found technically justified. This decision of the Divisional Canal Officer was, however reversed in appeal on 3rd February, 1987 by the Superintending Canal Officer. The matter went up to the Chief Canal Officer in revision, who remanded the same with certain observations regarding spot level of the area and about the position of the land left for watercourse from the common pool during consolidation operation. The matter was again considered by the Superintending Canal Officer and he also found that the demand of the respondents for allowing a separate outlet at RD 60650-R, after splitting the Chaks of existing outlets R-57160-R and 65670-R Dhamtan Disty, was justified and accepted the same. This decision of the Superintending Canal Officer, dated 30th September, 1987, has now been upheld by the Chief Canal Officer, dated 16th November, 1987 in which it has been found by him that the scheme for splitting outlet No. RD-57160-R was technically sound and feasible.

(3.) Challenging the aforesaid order the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is not a speaking order and on that account it should be set aside. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel on certain precedents Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and others, 1966 AIR(SC) 671, Bhagat Raja and others v. Union of India and others, 1967 AIR(SC) 1606and Bhajan Singh and others v. Superintending Canal Officer and others, 1970 PunLJ 1, in support of the proposition that non-speaking orders passed by the Canal authorities deserve to be set aside.