MUNESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 13.07.2007 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No.2 Divisional Canal Officer and for quashing of order dated 27.03.2008 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No.1 Superintending Canal Officer, 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 No.3 Jaspal Singh moved an application to the Canal Authorities praying that his land measuring 10.09/8.08 acres GA/CCA be withdrawn from the chak of outlet No.301409-R Bathinda Branch and the same be included in the chak of outlet No.1000-R, Rajbah Bhaini and further an area measuring 2.01 acres be declared as commandable from uncommandable. It is stated that there is no watercourse to the area from the existing outlet and the watercourse of the proposed outlet goes quite near to the land owned by respondent No.3. On notice, the petitioners appeared before the Divisional Canal Officer and raised objections that the outlet No.1000-R Rajbah Bhaini is set up for the area belonging to Village Sidhana and for the area belonging to Village Harnam Singh Wala outlet No.301409-R Bathinda Branch is running and the area of respondent No.3 falls within the Village Harnam Singh Wala, which cannot be included in Chak No.1000-R, Rajbah Bhaini. As such, the petitioners submitted that the transfer of the area from outlet No.301409-R, Bathinda Branch to outlet No.1000-R, Rajbah Bhaini under Section 20 and 30 of the Act is not permissible and declaring the area as commandable from uncommandable is also not permissible.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.