RAM KISHAN Vs. CHIEF CANAL OFFICER, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, the order of the Chief Canal Officer, respondent No. 1 (Annexure P.3) dated 28.12.1977, has been impugned by the petitioners.

(2.) The facts are that a set of shareholders including respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were getting irrigation for the last many years from outlets Nos. RD-49500/L and 53500/L of Dharaudi Minor and the petitioners as also some other shareholders were receiving irrigation from RD-53500/L of the same minor. It is not disputed by the Canal authorities that irrigation from these outlets to the fields was of high intensity and much higher than the normal percentage of 62%, as would be evident from the following :-

(3.) After hearing the parties, the Divisional Canal Officer, vide his order dated 5.4.1977 (Annexure P.1) held that, keeping in view the high intensity of irrigation of the entire area, the Scheme as sought for by respondents No. 4 to 6, was altogether unnecessary. He further observed that the new outlet as, has been demanded, would be upstream of the fall, which can lead to unauthorised acts of creating daff and, since the irrigation from the present source to the fields of respondents No. 4 to 6 and other shareholders was exceptionally good, the plea that the new outlet as proposed through the Scheme would improve their irrigation supply, was of no avail. He also found that the proposed chaks, as demanded by respondents No. 4 to 6 for new outlets, would be unwieldy and lengthy and a railway-crossing would also be involved and that, in spite of the fact that respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were prepared to defray the cost of the syphon to bring the water across the railway-crossing, technically there was no need to change the site of the outlet or to transfer the area. He also observed that, but for respondents Nos. 4 to 6, there was not a single factor meriting the change proposed through the Scheme. Thus, he rejected the Scheme.