HAMIR SINGH Vs. CHIEF CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners own land in village Chhan, Tehsil Hansi, District Hissar. The land in this village is irrigated by Old Chhan Minor offhooting from RD 13000 Udaipur Minor, which in turn off shoots from RD 13000 Surbra Distributary which takes off from RD 25000 Barwala Branch. In 1972 the landowners approached the Canal authorities with the request that a new Chhan Minor be constructed offshooting from RD 51000-R direct from Barwala Branch and further to join its tail to the old sub-Chhan Minor at its old RD-5500-L. The Divisional Canal Officer, in response to the request made by the landowners and for better irrigation facilities, prepared a proposal for construction of new Chhan Minor offshooting from RD-51000-L Barwala Branch and joining the old sub-Chhan Minor near about RD-5500-L. According to this proposal, the new Chhan Minor passed through Killa Nos. 13, 19, 20 and 21 of the petitioners situate on the boundary line of village Chhan and Udaipur. The alignment of the proposed new Chhan Minor took a little curve near the land of the petitioners at Killa No. 7 belonging to Nafe Singh respondent No. 5. The proposal was ultimately approved by the Chief Canal Officer respondent No.1 on February 26, 1976. According to the petitioners, the alignment of the new Chhan Minor over their land was changed by the Superintending Engineer respondent No. 2 on December 31, 1977, on the directions of Irrigation and Power Minister respondent No. 4 in order to harm them and it was done arbitrarily and mala fide inasmuch as the new alignment covered comparatively larger area of the land of the petitioners. The petitioners had political rivalry with the Irrigation and Power Minister and for this the latter acted mala fide against the former. The petitioners have thus challenged the action of the Canal authorities changing the alignment of the proposed passage of the Minor over their land allegedly taken at the instance of Irrigation and Power Minister.

(2.) The Irrigation and Power Minister respondent No. 4, in his written statement, denied the allegation of mala fide levelled against him. Nafe Singh respondent No. 5, in his written statement, also denied that he was on inimical terms with the petitioners or had association with the Irrigation and Power Minister or was in any way responsible for the change in the alignment. He stated that the alignment has been changed to remove the curve in the Minor. The Chief Canal Officer respondent No. 1 averred in his written statement that the earlier proposed alignment of New Chhan Minor followed a zig-zag course and involved greater length and more curves whereas the impugned changed alignment is straight, shorter reducing the chances of breaches resultant to the curves. The Superintending Engineer and the Divisional Canal Officer respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their joint written statement stated that in view of the various representations made to the Superintending Engineer Shri S.K. Barman, the latter inspected the site and after satisfying himself sanctioned the impugned alignment on December 12, 1977. The work upto R.D. 20904 (near the land of the petitioners) New Chhan Minor has already been completed according to the impugned alignment. The work beyond this point has not so far been taken up because the land of the petitioners start from that point and they have objected to the change in the alignment. The impugned alignment as sanctioned by the Superintending Engineer is legal and has also been approved by the Chief Engineer.

(3.) The petitioners have challenged the alignment of the entire route of New Chhan Minor passing over the land of various persons in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated during arguments that the writ petition may be taken as confirmed to the change in the alignment of the New Chhan Minor to the extent it passed over the land of the petitioners.