AVTAR SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shorn of all details as stated in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are aggrieved against the proposal of dismantling of a Fall in a canal, which is said to be detrimental to the interests of the petitioners for their lands thereby would be receiving less irrigation. Such action of the Superintending Canal Officer, respondent No. 1, and his subordinate, Divisional Canal Officer, respondent No. 2 has been challenged on the ground that they have not followed the procedure as envisaged under Section 30-A of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act.

(2.) The Superintending Canal Officer in his affidavit has countered that the water level in the channel has been raised further by 0.59 feet at the point in question where the Fall was originally situated and further that the channel has been raised by 1.55 feet at the tail of the channel. It has further been averred that the banks of the channel have been raised in order to bring more area under command. It has been highlighted that the provision of Fall under such circumstances has become unnecessary at R.D. 124000. And, since the command will improve by such steps, the question of lands of the petitioners receiving less irrigation did not arise.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that, in order to dismantle a Fall in a canal the respondents were required to prepare a scheme as envisaged under Section 30-A of the aforesaid Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents says that for dismantling a Fall in a channel which is maintained at the cost of the State Government, the provisions of Section 30-A of the said Act do not apply as the same were only concerned with water courses. The contention as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has amply been met in a decision rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 2041 of 1974 (Madan Lal and others v. Chief Engineer, Canals and others, 1985 RRR 274 by me on 7.9.1982. I had observed as follows :-