KULWINDER KAUR Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned five Civil Writ Petitions bearing CWP Nos. 10686, 22767, 23884 of 2011, 1911 and 3761 of 2012 have been heard together. All the above mentioned five Civil Writ Petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the facts in CWP No. 10686 of 2011. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 04.05.2011 (Annexure P/5) passed by respondent No. 1 - Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as the "SCO") and order dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No. 2 - Divisional Canal Officer, Eastern Division, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as the "DCO") under the provisions of Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and other shareholders of Village Chak Gulam Rasulwala, Chak Balochian (Dhani Prem Singhwala), Kabarwala and Suhelewala/Pakka Kalewala, moved an application to the DCO for extension of Suhelewala Minor from Burji No. 10930 to Burji No. 45500 on the ground that they are not getting irrigation and the water of tubewell is not fit for irrigating their fields. As a result of which their crop is being affected. The petitioner being shareholder of Suhelewala Minor along with others raised objections before the DCO that they do not want that the land of the private respondents be not irrigated, but it should not be done at the loss of the petitioner, rather, the Government should make arrangement for irrigation of land of the private respondents, so that the petitioner may not suffer. The case of the petitioner is that the Kalewala Minor is already existing and almost touches the land of the private respondents and that can be easily extended. Secondly, at the time of preparation of the scheme, the alignment for the extension of the existing Suhelewala Minor was just straight to reach at the lands of the private respondents, if extension is allowed, but later on due to political influence, the entire alignment of the proposed extension of Suhelewala Minor has been changed. Firstly, it goes towards upstream then there are 3-4 curves and thereafter it is shown to be reached to the land of the private respondents. As a result of this extension plan, the pucca houses of the petitioner will have to be demolished and the land will also be bifurcated in two parts. Such an extension of the Suhelewala Minor is against the rules, whereas, if the Kalewala Minor is extended, then there will be no need for acquisition of the land and already a sufficient length of Kalewala Minor is in existence. The order of the DCO extending the Suhelewala Minor is without any justification. Earlier, the SCO had accepted the appeal of the private respondents and the case was remanded to the DCO on the ground that due to the extension of Suhelewala Minor, scheme is to be reconsidered and alignments are also to be reconsidered keeping in view the interest of irrigation vide order dated 14.07.2009 (Annexure P/3). After the remand, the DCO passed a fresh order dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P/4) without considering the observations made in the remand order. Against the order of the DCO (Annexure P/4), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the SCO, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.05.2011 (Annexure P/5). Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Mr. Baljeet Singh Sandhu, the then Superintending Canal Officer (now Chief Engineer) is present in person in Court.