PAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are landowners of village Rupawas, Tehsil Sirsa, District Hissar. It is alleged by them that Chakbandi of the culturable commanded area of the Beruwali distributary started somewhere in February, 1966 and earlier to that landowners were getting respective turns of water by mutual arrangement. A scheme for the re-allotment of the area served by the distributary was prepared by the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer alone though under the provisions of Section 30-A of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter called the Act), it was only Divisional Canal Officer who could do so. This realignment, according to the petitioners, will prejudicially affect them as the outlets from which they could irrigate their lands would be located at a longer distance. The lands of the petitioners are said to be located on both sides of the distributary and a very rough plan showing the location of the lands and the distributary has been attached with the writ petition. It is further alleged that the right-holders of village Nirban to which amongst other right-holders, respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 belong could have enough water supply from the three water-courses already flowing from the Beruwali Distributary at R.D. 51000, 53000 and 56050 and that there is another water-course irrigating the village of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 starting at R.D. 59000. According to the petitioners, no re-alignment was necessary and all this was being done at the instance of Shri Prem Sukh Dass, Landlord and Rais of Sirsa in whose election to the Punjab Legislative Council in the year 1966, Respondent No. 4 was a voter, being a member of the Sirsa Block Panchayat Samiti and that he wanted to help Nand Ram, Respondent No. 4 and his co-villagers. A revision against the scheme was preferred by the petitioners before respondent No. 2 who was at that time the Superintending Engineer, Second Bhakra Main Line Circle, Hissar, but it is alleged that the same was dismissed. This officer is alleged to be married to the daughter of real sister of the father of Shri Prem Sukh Dass.

(2.) The main ground of attack against the scheme, therefore, is that it has been prepared mala fide by an officer not competent to do so. The return was filed by Shri G.P. Dewan, Superintending Engineer, Second Bhakra Main Line Circle, Hissar, who succeeded Mr. P.N. Gupta. It is denied that Shri Gupta was married to the daughter of real sister of the father of Shri Prem Sukh Dass of Sirsa and any pressure was brought on the subordinates by him. The scheme, according to the statement of this officer, has been prepared by the Divisional Canal Officer and all the interested parties appeared before him on 19th of March, 1966 after proper service of notice. The Sub-Divisional Canal Officer only completed the case to be put up to the Divisional Canal Officer.

(3.) Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the scheme was not prepared by the Divisional Canal Officer, but by the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer who had no jurisdiction to do so. He had, however, no grievance that the petitioners were not given proper hearing, but his only objection is that no Officer subordinate to the Divisional Canal Officer should have figured in the matter of processing and preparation of the scheme.