SATBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned orders dated 25.06.2012 (Annexure P-4) rendered by the Deputy Collector, Adampur, Water Service Division, Hisar and order dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer dismissing the appeal and as well as the order dated 07.05.2013 (Annexure P-6) of the Superintendent Canal Officer dismissing the revision petition and order dated 05.08.2013 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Chief Canal Officer.

(2.) Mr. Shailender Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the private respondent(s) moved an application before the Divisional Canal Officer, for exclusion of an area for the purpose of distribution and use of the water i.e. closer of the naka. The same was erroneously accepted by the Divisional Canal Officer. The matter was taken up by Superintending Canal Officer, who remanded back the matter to the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector did not have the power to decide the controversy of such nature as the power prescribed under Section 55 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act') only deals with the use and distribution and that to by holding an inquiry, whereas for exclusion of an area, adherence has to be made to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, yet the Deputy Collector entertained the request and passed the impugned order. The matter was taken up by Superintending Canal Officer, who dismissed the appeal and the Chief Canal Officer rejected the appeal being not maintainable, whereas as per the provisions of sub-Section 3 of Section 20 of the Act, Chief Canal Officer has the powers to entertain the application, thus, the impugned orders under challenge are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Ajit Sihag, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 submits that the Deputy Collector has the power in view of the provisions of Section 55 of the Act. The use and distribution would also envisage the exclusion of an area and therefore, there is no illegality and perversity in the orders. Naka/exclusion of area was sought to be unauthorized and it is, in this aspect of the matter, the authorities have accepted the application, thus, urges this Court for upholding the orders under challenge.