GOBIND RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved against the orders passed by the Divisional Canal Officer dated 28.01.2011, Superintending Canal officer dated 06.05.2011 and the Chief Canal Officer dated 19.08.2013 by which an application filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 for change of alignment of consolidation watercourse ABCD to ABEFCD has been allowed. In short, the dispute in this case is with regard to change of alignment of consolidation watercourse ABCD running through Rect./Killa No. 116/3-4-5 on the Northern Killa line to watercourse ABEFCD in Rect./Killa No. 109//25/1-24/2/23/2 along side the road in the Chak of Outlet R.D. 55000-R, Kasumbi Minor of village Kotli, Tehsil & District Sirsa.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners, with reference to the Khaka Plan (Annexure P-1), has submitted that the consolidation watercourse is shown as ABCD which has now been realigned by way of the impugned orders as ABEFCD. It is submitted that EF is parallel to road and would cause hindrance in proper irrigation of the land of the petitioners.

(3.) On a pointed query, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have the jurisdiction to pass the order for realignment of a watercourse under Section 17 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and he could not justify his stand as to what prejudice is going to be caused to him with the re-alignment. The land of the petitioners is, in any case, beyond point 'D' shown in Annexure P-1 and if the watercourse is realigned instead of point 'AB' to 'AE' and instead of point 'BF' to 'EF', interest of the petitioners is not going to be effected because, in any case, the petitioners have to take water at point 'D'. In view thereof, I do not find any error in all the impugned orders passed by the respondents and hence, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.