HUKAM CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are 25 in numbers and the respondents Nos. 4 to 34 are the right-holders in the revenue estate of different villages, that is, petitioners Nos. 5 to 10 are the right-holders in the revenue estate of village Bhaiapur, petitioners Nos. 14 to 25 are the right-holders in Sukhpura and Rohtak only and the remaining petitioners are the right holders in the revenue estate of village Bhaiapur as also villages of Sukhpura and Rohtak. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 13 are the landowners of 37 Acres of agricultural land in the revenue estate of village Bhaiapur which is shown as disputed land in Annexure P.1 plan attached to this petition. This area falls in the command area of Bohar Distributary with outlet being at R.D. 4335-R. This area is situate on the other side (Western) of the Rohtak-Gohana railway line and in the absence of any arrangement, the area of 83 Acres situate beyond the railway line though included in the command area of Bohar Distributary has never been irrigated and the inclusion of the said area in the command of Bohar Distributary is in name and on paper alone and thus the land remained unirrigated. The petitioners then approached the authorities of the Haryana Irrigation Department to transfer their land from the command area of Bohar Distributary to that of Makroli Minor. This was allowed by the Divisional Canal Officer vide his order dated August 31, 1974, copy of the order is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. The respondents then filed revision before the Superintending Canal Officer which was allowed and the order of the Divisional Canal Officer was set aside vide his order dated November 18, 1974. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have filed petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order of the Superintending Canal Officer.

(2.) The land of petitioners Nos. 1 to 13 measuring 37 Acres along with 46 Acres of more land is situate on the other side of the railway line and admittedly the land remained unirrigated as there is no syphon under the railway line to bring the water from the Bohar Distributary to the land in dispute. Seeing this difficulty, the Divisional Canal Officer passed the order that this area which is on the Western side of the Railway line can be irrigated from Makroli Minor and this order was passed after considering the objections of all the interested parties and after spot inspection. The Divisional Canal Officer also observed that the size of the outlet of the Makroli Minor shall be increased proportionately at the cost of the petitioners Nos. 1 to 13.

(3.) To my mind this was proper and just order in the interest of the agricultural development. The learned Superintending Canal Officer had over- looked this fact taken into consideration by the Divisional Canal Officer that the size of Makroli Minor outlet would be increased proportionately. The Superintending Canal Officer failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him in accordance with law. Moreover, if the area situate on the Western side of the railway line is irrigated by the Makroli Minor it will add to the national production. So far the area had remained unirrigated. It will also not affect the respondents because the size of their outlet is to be increased at the cost of the petitioners.