ATTAR SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant seeks permission to place on record the copy of Warabandi dated 8.1.2009, as Annexure R-1.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 2.6.2009 (Annexure P-3), dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner by Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur-respondent No, 1, thereby upholding the order dated 4.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division-respondent No. 2, whereby appeal of the petitioner against order dated 29.7.2008 passed by respondent No. 3 sanctioning an additional Nakka (outlet) in favour of respondent No. 4, was dismissed, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing of the above said orders.

(3.) The brief facts of the case as per record, are that respondent No. 4 moved an application before the Deputy Collector, Abohar Canal Division-respondent No. 3, to the effect that two additional Nakkas be sanctioned up to 15 karams, ahead of Killa Nos. 189/5 and 188/1, on the stone line for irrigating his land falling in Killa Nos. 189/5 and 189/6-1. The application moved by respondent No. 4 was processed by respondent No. 3 for the purpose of Warabandi (turn of water) at watercourse No. 18725/L, Daulatpura Minor, Alamgarh, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur. Respondent No. 3 took the decision on 29.7.2008 (Annexure P-1), which showed that he sought report from the Ziledar. This order further shows that Ziledar, after conducting inspection at the site, submitted amended warabandi. Thereafter, it is stated that notice was sent to the petitioner under Section 68 of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 ("Act of 1873" for short). In response thereto, petitioner appeared and made a statement before respondent No. 3, as recorded in the impugned order dated 29.7.2008, at page No. 14 of the paper book, that since turn of water of the petitioner was sanctioned at serial No. 32, the additional Nakkas demanded by the applicant respondent No. 4 herein, will cause loss of irrigation to the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted that since respondent No. 4 had his turn of water on another watercourse also, he was getting sufficient water. Thus, petitioner submitted that an additional Nakka in favour of respondent No. 4 be not sanctioned. However, it seems that the plea raised by the petitioner did not find favour with respondent No. 3 and he passed the order dated 29.7.2008 (Annexure P-1), sanctioning two additional Nakkas in favour of respondent No. 4.