HAZARI LAL Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred to get quashed orders, Annexures P-5 and P-7 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer respectively. By virtue of those orders, the site of an outlet has been shifted. The petitioner bemoans that thereby irrigation facilities extended to him stand diminished.

(2.) The petitioners as also respondents Nos. 3 to 21 share irrigation facilities from the Lambi distributary. On this distributary, there was an outlet R.D. 198001-R. In addition thereto, there was another outlet R.D. 190900-R, presumably far upstream. Right-holder Ch. Rati Ram through Shiv Narain applied that some of his areas be excluded from the Chak of outlet R.D. 190900-R and it may be included in the Chak of outlet R.D. 198000-R. Yet, at the same time, prayer made was that outlet R.D. 198000-R itself be shifted from its present location and be brought upstream. Accordingly, a scheme under section 30-B of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 was prepared and ultimately confirmed without the least objection by the Divisional Canal officer on 9.5.1973 vide order, Annexure P-2. The proposed areas were shifted to the outlet and the said outlet was shifted at R.D. 196240-R.

(3.) The petitioner by appending Annexure P.1, the plan of the site, has shown thereon the site of R.D. 198000-R as also the site of R.D. 196240-R. The latter site of the outlet is situated within the land of the present petitioner Hazari Lal. The petitioner claims that he is a tenant of Shiv Narain, the original applicant for shifting of the outlet, and being a tenant entitled to purchase the area under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, had incurred his displeasure on the attempt being made. Thereupon, those landowners by putting up one Devi Lal, another sharer of Irrigation facilities applied for transfer of the outlet downstream to site of R.D. 196900-R. This too has been shown in plan, Annexure P-1. The Divisional Canal Officer vide his order dated 26.9.1975, Annexure P.5, allowed the prayer despite objection of the petitioner and without giving an opportunity of being heard to his counsel. The petitioner then filed revision petition before the Superintending Canal Officer. There, seemingly, he did not press the objection of the petitioner's counsel being not heard, but otherwise, on merits, suggested that the order was working injustice to him. The Superintending Canal Officer vide his order dated 10.6.1976, Annexure P-7 rejected the contention. He took the view that outlet fixed at R.D. 196240-R immediately brought the water to a lower level and since the watercourse had to run along the main distributary for three acres length, that caused breaches in the watercourse and the same disturbed irrigation. The petitioner's plea that levels at both the sites, i.e. at R.D. 196240-R and R.D. 196900-R in the main distributary were practically the same or even higher at the former site was rejected by the said officer because he was of the view that the levels did not justify the contention that the irrigation of the petitioner would in any way be affected.