KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and respondent No. 4 are real brothers. Respondent No. 4 filed an application to respondent No. 3 for grant of separate wari/turn of water in respect of his share of land comprised in khata No. 106. His application was allowed by respondent No. 3 on 16.12.2016. The petitioner filed appeal in terms of Section 55(5) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (for short "the Act") before respondent No. 2, which was dismissed by observing that the parties to the lis are cultivating their land according to their shares and are entitled to the water for irrigation separately.

(2.) Still aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No. 1. The case set up by the petitioner is that Surja Ram was the owner of land measuring 936.8 kanals and after his death, half share of the said land, measuring 468 kanals, fell to the share of the petitioner and his brothers, namely, Om, Sunder and Ajit and the other half share fell to the share of the legal heirs of Surja Ram. It is alleged that all the four brothers are co-sharers to the extent of ' share each. It is alleged that wari/turn of half share to respondent No. 4 has been wrongly given. Respondent No. 1, after going through the khaka plan, parat warabandi and other documents, held that the wari/turn can be allowed without partition as the partition may take time and one of the co-sharer cannot be allowed the water more than his share. He also observed that as per the provisions of the Act, the canal water can be permitted on the basis of cultivating possession of the land.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the stand taken before respondent No. 1 but after hearing him in detail, I have not found any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the authorities below as respondent No. 4 would be entitled to his wari/turn of water as per his share of land.