BHAJAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At issue in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is the legality and validity of orders dated July 22, 1974 of the Divisional Canal Officer and order dated November 28, 1974 of the Superintending Canal Officer (Annexure P. 3). It has been filed in the following circumstances:

(2.) Three points were taken in the writ petition and the same have been reiterated before me. They are : (i) that the scheme was not prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sections 30-A to 30-D of the Act and proper notices were not issued to the effected right holders; (ii) that the Divisional Canal Officer and the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer did not associate the petitioners with them when they went to inspect the spot and made measurements of the spot levels, and; (iii) that an alternative water course ALMTE has been in existence ever since the advent of the canal in the area which was about 30 years back.

(3.) A perusal of the order Annexure P. 4 which was placed on the file later on and was perhaps not available to the learned counsel for the petitioner when he drafted the writ petition, it is clear that a scheme was prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sections 30-A to 3-D of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1893 (for short, 'the Act') had been properly published and notices had been issued to the affected right holders and in fact all the petitioners appeared before the Divisional Canal Officers and projected their view-points. Their presence has been marked. The contentions raised by them on various dates have also been noticed in this order. The Divisional Canal Officer had sanctioned water course ABCD after hearing the parties. So the first submission cannot be accepted.