DALIP SINGH BHAGWANA Vs. SUPDT CANAL OFFICER ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS will dispose of two petitions Nos. 537 and 408 of 1967 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by ten petitioners in the first petition and nine petitioners in the second petition, both the sets of petitioners belonging to village sisai Bola, in Tehsil Hansi of Hissar District. In the first petition there are six respondents of whom the first two are the State of Haryana, and the superintending Canal Officer, W. J. C. , West Circle, Rohtak, and respondents 3 to 6 are Rameshwar, Bir Singh, Ujala and Badlu; and in the second petition there are five respondents of whom the first is the Superintending Canal Officer, W. J. C. , west Circle, Rohtak, and respondents 2 to 5 are Pahlad, Baru, Hawa and harnarain.

(2.) ON an approach by respondents 3 to 6 in the first petition, and respondents 2 to 5 in the second petition, to the Divisional Canal Officer for shifting of two outlets, from the present location of the same, draft schemes in that connection were prepared by the Divisional Canal Officer under Section 30-A (1) (d) of the Northern india Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (Act 8 of 1873 ). Respondents 3 to 6 in the first petition had asked for shifting the outlet RD 19000-R co RD 17985-R on Sisai minor. In his order of October 11, 1966. Annexure 'b', the Divisional Canal Officer rejected this demand pointing out that in thus shifting the outlet interests of irrigation will not be served as the outlet will be situate in one corner of the Chak if so shifted. He had inspected the site on September 30, 1966, and found that the site of the existing outlet RD 19000-R was most suitable. Respondents 2 to 5 in the second petition had asked for shifting of outlet RD 10000-R to Rule 12000-R on Sisai minor, but by the same order the Divisional Canal Officer rejected that demand pointing out that on an inspection of the site on September 30, 1966, he had found that the shifting of outlet RD 10000--R to RD 12000-R on the same minor was not in the interests of irrigation. Against this order of the Divisional Canal Officer there were revision applications to the Superintending Canal Officer by both the sets of respondents. This officer disposed of those revision applications by his order of February 2. 1967, and accepting both the revision applications shifted both the outlets as had been demanded by both the sets of respondents. In these two petitions the order of the superintending Canal Officer has been challenged as not according to law and thus invalid.

(3.) THE two petitions being directed against the same order of the Superintending canal Officer have been considered together. The first petition first came before grover J. who made an order, dated August 4, 1967, referring petition No, 537 of 1967 to a larger Bench, and of course the second petition No. 408 of 1967 has come before this Bench with the first. In petition No. 537 of 1967 Grover J. found that there was no material which supported the allegation of mala fide against the superintending Canal Officer that he has made his order on extraneous considerations. He was also of the opinion that the merit of the order made by the superintending Canal Officer was not open to argument on the side of the petitioners in a petition like this. Both these considerations of course also apply to similar allegations in the second petition No. 408 of 1967. On such considerations the learned Judge was of the opinion that there could not be interference with the order of the Superintending Canal Officer and that was, in my opinion, the correct approach.