DARSHAN SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Darshan Singh seeks a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash order dated 19th January, 1993 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer vide which the appeal filed by Gurpiar Singh respondent No. 4 was accepted setting aside the order dated 29th July, 1992 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot Canal Division, thus, fixing his turn of water at account No. 57/4 from account No. 92/1.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case reveal that petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 6 are share-holders getting irrigation from water course No. 16650/r. Whereas respondents No. 4 to 6 had their turn of water fixed at sanctioned water course, the petitioner had dug a private water course in his own land and was irrigating his land from there. Inasmuch as Jangir Singh had also some of his land mixed up with that of the petitioner he was using the private water course, of the petitioner so as to irrigate the same. The respondent aforesaid, however, demolished a portion of the sanctioned water course, thus, stopping the water supply to Balbir Singh respondent No. 5. Aggrieved, Balbir Singh filed an application to the Divisional Canal Officer Faridkot for the restoration of the demolished water course which was allowed by the Divisional Canal Officer vide his order dated 17th July, 1991. Jangir Singh agitated the matter by way of appeal which was dismissed by the Superintending Canal Officer on 8th January, 1992. It was held in the aforesaid order that it was a case of demolishing existing water course where even the turn of the parties was fixed. In as much as respondents No. 4 and 5 were unable to get water supply from anywhere during the period, litigation referred to above, was pending. The said respondents started using the private water course of the petitioner who could not withstand pressure exerted upon him by respondents No. 4 and 5 and helplessly watched them doing so hoping that after the sanctioned water course is restored, the said respondent would take supply of water form the sanctioned water course only. The hope of the petitioner did not materialise as respondents No. 4 and 5 filed an application before the Deputy Collector under Section 68 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 for shifting their turn of water to account No. 57/4 and 57/5 of water course of the petitioner. Jangir Singh respondent No. 6 whom the petitioner had permitted use of his water course compromised with respondents No. 4 and 5, thus agreeing to allow them the use of water which was obviously at the cost of the petitioner.

(3.) THIS matter was contested by the petitioner on various grounds inclusive of that so far his water course is concerned, the same did not exist in the papers being a private water course but the prayer of respondents No. 4 and 5 was allowed by the Deputy Collector vide his order dated 28th May, 1992. Being aggrieved, the petitioner agitated the matter before the appellate authority. The Divisional Canal Officer Faridkot before whom the appeal came up for hearing vide his order dated 29th July, 1992 set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Collector Faridkot holding that since the original water course AB had been restored where the turn of the parties, too, was fixed, there was no reason whatsoever for shifting the turns to the other water course which did not actually exist. It is against this order that Gurpair Singh filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer which culminated into order Annexure P4 with the result as indicated above.