DARYAO SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the policy for rice shoots for Kharif, 1999 as approved by Respondent No. 1 vide Memo No. 9/1/RS-IE(3), dated 28/05/1990, in this writ petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Facts first:- Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are the right holders of village Koel and are share-holder in the outlets installed on Koel Minor. Petitioner No. 3 is the Gram Panchayat of village Koel. In the State of Haryana, there are two main canal systems, namely, (i) Bhakra Canal System and (ii) Western Jamuna Canal System. Land of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 is irrigated through Koel Minor which flows from Dhamtan Distributory of Bhakra Canal System. Village Koel has about 9500 acres of cultivable area. It had two outlets (mogas) common with village Kurar in which their share was barely 8 hours out of 24 hours. Koel Minor was sanctioned (out of Dhamtan Distributory) which started operating about 28 to 30 years. It has its tail in village Koel and three outlets were sanctioned to the landowners of village Koel for proper irrigation. After about five years, another outlet was sanctioned for village Kurar and thus Koel Minor had four outlets. Maximum capacity of Koel Minor is 5.79 Cusecs.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 has framed a policy for grant of rice shoots. Respondent No. 5 has some supporter's in village Kurar and he got installed rice shoot on Koel Minor in 1989 during paddy season. This resulted in acute shortage of water on the tail and the residents of village Koel could not even get minimum water for irrigation as the rice shoots were installed upstream while they are on the tail. Respondent No. 3 sanctioned two rice shoots 9100-L and 4500-R on Koel Minor for use of landowners of village Kurar in total contravention of the terms of the policy decision allegedly at the behest of respondent No. 5. Rice shoot is "an outlet in irrigation channel with the aim of delivering discharge over and above the normal water allowance of the area especially for rice cultivation". A new outlet can only be provided by preparing a draft scheme under S. 17 of the Haryana Canals and Drainage Act, 1974 (for short, the Act), which is to be finalised under S. 18 of the Act. The procedure prescribed in Ss. 17 and 18 of the Act has not been followed. Resultantly, the policy for sanctioning rice shoots in violation of the statutory provisions of the Act is thus void ab initio.