MANGE RAM Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Private respondents 3 to 6 used to irrigate their land through watercourse 'ABCEFG' part of which was dismantled by the petitioner. Partap Singh son of Rattan Singh respondent and others applied to the Divisional Canal Officer for providing watercourse for carrying water to their fields. The Divisional Canal Officer published two alternate scheme providing two separate watercourse, 'ADEFG' or 'ABCEFG' and invited objections to both the schemes. Ultimately, he sanctioned watercourse 'ADEFG' in the interest of better irrigation and being more suitable. Petitioner challenged this order before the Superintending Canal Officer, Western Jamna Canal, West Circle, Rohtak. The said authority upheld the order of the Divisional Canal Officer. These two orders have been impugned by the petitioner. It is asserted that since private respondents had complained that a part of the existing watercourse through which they used to irrigate their fields had been demolished and the same be restored, the Divisional Canal Officer acting under the provisions of section 30-FF could have restored only the demolished watercourse and had no power of making fresh scheme.

(2.) Both sides admitted that the existing watercourse which was demolished was not a sanctioned watercourse. There are decisions of this Court that if the watercourse is not a sanctioned watercourse then no right exists to carry water through that watercourse and there is no question of restoration of demolished watercourse by the Canal Authorities unless the user had acquired easement rights to carry water through the non-sanctioned watercourse. The Canal Authorities rightly following the procedure under Section 30-A formulated two alternate schemes and invited objections thereto and one that was considered feasible was adopted and sanctioned. No fault can be found with the same.

(3.) For the reasons aforementioned this petition is dismissed as being without any merit. No order as to costs.