RAM SARUP Vs. DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are residents of village Patti Afgan have jointly filed this writ petition for quashing order of Chief Canal Officer dated 16.11.1987 (Annexure P.3 to the writ petition), vide which he had set aside the orders of the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer and had allowed the outlet to be fixed at RD 13000-L Kaithal sub-minor.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos. 4 to 7 moved an application before Divisional Canal Officer, Kaithal Division, Irrigation Branch for shifting of the outlet from RD 12400-L to RD 13000-L Kaithal sub- minor. It partly accepted the petitioner's claim and observed that the existing outlet at RD 12400-L Kaithal sub-minor is fixed at a site on higher level and is in the beginning of the chak. The intensity of irrigation to 458/438 acres area of the chak, is 87% against the authorised intensity of 62%. It was further observed that the irrigation is being done properly from the existing site of outlet at RD 12400-L Kaithal sub-minor and he reached to the conclusion that the demand of the applicants-respondents for shifting of head of outlet from RD 12400-L from Kaithal Sub Minor to RD 13000-L is to avoid the curves in the main water-course near the head of outlet. It was further observed that it will create many problems to maintain the watercourse for irrigation in the head reach area if the existing outlet is shifted as per demand of the applicants. In the end it was observed that the difficulty for maintaining the water course in the head reach area if any will be removed after lining of water courses by Haryana State Minor Irrigation Authorities and rejected the demand made by the private respondents-applicants. Thereafter, the said respondents filed appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Canal Circle. The site was inspected by the Superintending Canal Officer, who noticed some curves and in order to remove this difficulty the site of outlet was slightly changed to RD 12520-L Kaithal sub-minor on the Killa line of 22/6-15, as shown on the Khaka Plan. Against the order of the Superintending Canal Officer, the private respondents filed appeal before the Chief Canal Officer who vide order dated 16.11.1987 accepted the appeal and set aside the orders of the Divisional, Canal Officer and that of Superintending Canal Officer.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer had rejected the petitioners' (respondents herein) claim about shifting of outlet to RD 12520-L Kaithal Sub-Minor after inspection of the site and there was no material whatsoever before the Chief Canal Officer to allow the respondents' claim for shifting outlet to RD 13000-L Kaithal Sub-Minor.