NIHALA SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are residents of village Budha Khera Lather, Tehsil and District Jind. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are residents of village Shadipur, Tehsil and District Jind. The land owned by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was being irrigated from outlet No. 10863-L but the said respondents applied for he transfer of some of their land from outlet No. 10863-L to outlet No. 29720-R. Proceedings were taken under Section 30-A of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Divisional Canal Officer, Jind Division, vide his order dated August 13, 1974, accepted the request of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and ordered the transfer of the area from outlet No. RD-10863-L. Julana Sub-Minor to outlet R.D. 28720-R. Copy of this order is Annexure 'P-1' with the writ petition. Petitioners, feeling aggrieved against this order, filed a revision petition before the Superintending Canal Officer, which was dismissed by him vide order dated October 23, 1974, copy of which is Annexure 'P-2' with the writ petition. The petitioners in this petition have challenged the orders Annexures 'P-1' and 'P-2'.

(2.) The only ground pressed in this petition before us is that the proceedings in the present case should have been taken under Section 20 of the Act and not under Section 30-A. It has been averred in the petition that the land in question was not culturable commanded area of outlet No. R.D. 10863-L, Julana Sub-Minor and, therefore, the application of provisions of Section 30-A of the Act is without jurisdiction. Reliance is being placed on a Bench decision of this Court in Shri Partap Singh and others v. Shri Midha Singh and others, 1973 PunLJ 735. This contention is without any merit. It is clear from the record that the area which has been ordered to be transferred was culturable commanded area and was being commanded from outlet No. R.D. 10863-L. In this view of the matter, the provisions of Section 30-A of the Act would be applicable. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned orders.

(3.) No other point has been pressed before us.