JIT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition of 13 right-holders of village Sadewala in District Hissar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the validity of the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer on 29th of February, 1964, to shift a water outlet at RD 108000 to RD 109140-R in Square No. 145/146.

(2.) From the assertions made in the petitioner it appears that the fields of the petitioners and respondents 4 to 12 are irrigated at present from outlet No. RD 108000-R of Sadewa Distributary which has been receiving waters of the Bhakra Canal for the last six years. According to the petitioners, this outlet was constructed from the very inception of Sadewa Distributary which was constructed six years ago. At the instance of some other right-holders the Divisional Canal Officer "In the interests of irrigation" made an order on 29th of February, 1964, to shift the outlet to another place in the same field. This order purports to have been made under Section 20 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873.

(3.) It is contended by Mr. Gokal Chand Mittal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that no authority vests in the Divisional Canal Officer under Section 20 of the Act to make an order for shifting an existing outlet from one place to another. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel must prevail both on principle and authority. Section 20 of the Act refers to supply of water through intervening watercourse and it is stated therein that when an application is made to a Division Canal Officer for supply of water from a canal, and it appears to him expedient that such supply should be given and that it should be conveyed through some existing watercourse, he shall give notice to the persons responsible for the maintenance of such watercourse to show cause why this supply should not be so conveyed. The powers vested in the Divisional Canal Officer cannot be construed, in my opinion, to shut an existing watercourse and shift it to another place. There is nothing in the Act to prevent the Division Canal Officer from opening other outlets but Section 20 cannot be used to shut an existing watercourse and shift it to another place. Reference may be made to Manjit Singh V/s. The Superintending Engineer, Upper Bari Doab Circle, Amritsar, 1964 66 PunLR 495 in which I said that Section 20 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act is intended to apply to applicants who desire their fields to be served through an existing watercourse and the canal authorities are empowered to entertain such applications after enquiry. An outlet is a connecting link between the canal and the watercourse and is included in the definition of the canal and is constructed and maintained by the State Government. I am still of the view which I took in that case that Section 20 of the Act does not invest power in the Division Canal Officer or indeed any other authority appointed under the Act to shut an existing outlet and shift it to another position on the canal.