KASHMIR SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to orders dated December 16, 1999 and July 28, 2000, Annexures P-10 and P-12 passed by the Canal Authorities allowing extension of Waryam Khera minor from pillar No. 6078 and connecting with the pillar No. 76300 of Ramsara minor with a link and for sanction of Ramsara minor from 76300 to 88625 as Waryam Khera minor for villages Shergarh, Waryam Khera, Dhingawali, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur.

(2.) AS projected in the petition, facts of the case would reveal that Dhanpat Rai, fourth respondent herein and some other share holders of village Waryam Khera filed an application in the year 1998 before the Divisional Canal Officer-respondent No. 2 herein pleading therein that their land was being irrigated from Waryam minor through outlet No. 6078 by which they were not getting proper irrigation. A request for extension of Waryam minor to increase the discharge of water in Waryam minor was, thus, made by them. The second respondent directed the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, respondent No. 3, to submit a report with respect to application, who further asked Ziledar, Ajimgarh to visit the spot and report regarding feasibility of the said request. On September 9, 1998, Ziledar, Ajimgarh, although verified the water tail gauge and command statement maintained in the office of respondent No. 2 and submitted his report to respondent No. 3, it is the case of petitioner that the same was done without discussing the water tail gauge and command statement actually verified by him. On receipt of the aforesaid report, respondent No. 3 himself sought levelling report from the Junior Engineer and examined the records of water tail gauge and command statement maintained in the office of respondent No. 2 and submitted his report before the second respondent. He neither recommended the case of applicants nor mentioned anything regarding levelling reports, L-sections, water tail gauge or command statement. He only mentioned that in the event of connecting Waryam minor with Ramsra minor, the FSI, in the Waryam minor would have to be raised by two feet and that for doing so, raising of the parent channel, i.e., Malikpur Rajbaha from RD 74700 to RD 13300 would have to be done. He further observed that command in the Ramsra minor would be reduced. It is further the case of petition that although there was no recommendation by the third respondent with regard to application, still the second respondent on January 11, 1999 ordered a scheme to be framed with respect to the proposal of applicants, who were politically very close to the present Akali-BJP Government and a scheme, Annexure P-7, was framed on orders issued by the second respondent. In the scheme, no mention was made with regard to costs to be incurred as the column of expenditure was left blank. It was mentioned that the whole expenditure to be incurred in the execution of scheme was to be borne by the applicants. The list of persons to be benefited and affected was not attached with the scheme.

(3.) MR . Pathela, learned counsel for the petitioner has not touched the aspect of adverse irrigation of petitioner by the scheme that has been sanctioned by the canal authorities presumably for the reason that a firm finding of fact has been recorded by the canal authorities that the area of fourth respondent and others, who prayed for the scheme, as mentioned above, is situated towards down stream from RD 6078 of Waryam minor and that it hampers their irrigation. Conscious, thus, of the fact that scheme, as envisaged would benefit the cause of respondents and further that there is no material on record that may show adverse effect on the irrigation, as mentioned above, nothing on this aspect, has been argued.