BALWANT SINGH Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is directed against the order of the Addl. District Judge, who set aside the order of the trial Court. In consequence thereof, ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts are that Balwant Singh son of Masudi applied for shifting of head of outlet from RD-8500-L to RC-9070l Pabra Sub Branch before the Divisional Canal Officer on the plea that the area in his possession is not getting proper irrigation from the existing source. The Divisional Canal Officer got the case investigated through Ziledar who after investigation and site inspection recommended the case for shifting of the head of the outlet. A scheme was submitted tinder Section 17 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act (for short the Act ). The scheme was published under Section 18 (1) of the Act. Objections and suggestions, if any, were invited. Notice was served on all concerned under Rule 96. The scheme was personally explained to the shareholders who attended the office of the Divisional Canal Officer on 25. 6. 1987. The matter was finally decided on 23. 7. 1987. The Divisional Canal Officer rejected the claim for shifting of the head of the outlet. This order was challenged before the Superintending Canal Officer, who allowed the appeal and accepted the claim for shifting of the head of the outlet. Some of the shareholders filed appeal before the Chief Canal Officer who dismissed the same. The order of the Superintending Canal Officer and Chief Canal Officer was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 2036 of 1992. The writ petition was dismissed on 21. 2. 1992 by a Division Bench of this Court as this Court found no ground to interfere with the orders of the Superintending Canal Officer/chief Canal Officer. The petitioners in the writ petition also made a prayer that they were not made party before the Superintending Canal Officer/chief Canal Officer. On this contention it was observed that the petitioners if so aggrieved can move the concerned Authority for appropriate remedy. After some time some of the shareholders again made an application before the Superintending Canal Officer, who vide detailed order dated 27. 7. 1992 dismissed the application.

(3.) THE present suit was filed by the plaintiffs who claimed them selves to be the shareholders. In the suit, a declaration was sought that the orders passed by the Superintending Canal Officer and Chief Canal Officer in connection with the shifting of the head of the outlet are wrong, illegal void against the facts and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder. In the suit, it was alleged that no scheme as contemplated under the Act was published. Sketch plan was not prepared or published at the time of publication of the Scheme and the order passed by the Authorities are not proper and justified.