TEK CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, Tek Chand, son of Hardial of village Kaluwas, tehsil Bhiwani, district Hissar, has sought issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order No. 4262/29/3 -G (Rohtak), dated 18th March, 1967, of the Superintending Canal Officer, Western Yamuna Canal, West Circle, Rohtak (Annexure A).

(2.) THE Respondents in this case are the State of Haryana, the Superintending Canal Officer and Gulzari, a right -holder of neighbouring village Nathuwas. The Petitioner formerly used to receive water for irrigation of his land from an outlet No. 174580/R. During the course of proceedings for consolidation of holdings, the Petitioner and other right -holders approached the Canal Department requesting that their lands are not getting proper supply of water in adequate quantity from that outlet and, therefore, their areas should be transferred to outlet No. 180188/R. Both these outlets are in Bhiwani Distributory and at a short distance from each other. The Petitioner and other right -holders who wanted water from out -let No. 180188/R were owners of an area measuring 50 standard acres. The Sub -Divisional Canal Officer framed a scheme for purposes of the transfer sought; and according to him it was made under Section 30 -A of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (No. VIII of 1873) but according to the contesting Respondents, this matter was dealt with under Section 20. The scheme was duly published and ultimately approved in August, 1963. It was mentioned that in view of the amendment of the Act on 11th April, 1963, by Punjab Act No. XXI of 1963, power to prepare the scheme was given to the Sub -Divisional Canal Officer in place of Divisional Canal Officer. Reference was made to Sections 30 -A to 30 -F. Under Section 30 -B, the Sub -Divisional Canal Officer submitted the scheme to the Divisional Canal Officer for confirmation which was done on 23rd of December, 1963. This scheme was further submitted by the Divisional Canal Officer to the Superintending Canal Officer, Respondent No. 2, who also confirmed it on 31st of January, 1964.

(3.) THE principal reason advanced is that the impugned order was made not under Section 20 but under Sections 30 -A and 30 -B of the Act. These three sections are produced below: -