JAGJIT SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. PUNJAB STATE TUBEWELL CORPORATION LTD THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners who are 11 in number state that for more than 30 years there exists a water course emerging from Rajbaha Sangrur from out let at R D. 91404 L by which the lands of villages Kheri, Kular Khurd are irrigated. They state that their land are situated at a higher level than that of the watercourse and could not be irrigated by it. According to them, the irrigation by the water Course P.2 - ends at a distance of more than two furlongs from the outer limit of village Mohlan where there land is situated. They maintain that they never used canal water for irrigation purpose and no Abiana was ever charged from them. They have made their own arrangement for irrigation by sinking wells and tubewells and this fact is recorded in the Nehri Girdawri. They are aggrieved by a scheme for bricklining the said water course. They have been made liable to share the expense incurred on its bricklining and their share is sought to be recovered from them,

(2.) BESIDES disowning their liability to pay the bricklining expenses on the ground that they are not the beneficiary from the water course they have further pleaded that the draft scheme for bricklining of the water course is void at it was not prepared by the Divisional Canal Officer as provided under Section 30 -A of the Northern India Canal Drai -nage Act. 1873 (for short the Act') but in fact it was prepared by a Ziledar who had no jurisdiction to do so. It is further maintained that the Divisional Canal officer, Punjab Tubewells Corporation, Respondent No. 1 while finalising the bricklining scheme did not apply his own mind and wrongly mentioned the area of the Petitioners as being commanded by the said water course and made them liable to pay the costs under Section 30 -E of the Act. It is also pleaded that Respondent No. 1 did not follow the mandatory provisions of Section 30 -C of the Act and did not call upon the Petitioners to implement the scheme at their own costs. A prayer is, therefore, made for issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing proceedings for recovery of the costs of bricklining from the Petitioners and for a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to recover the said costs from them.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel, I find that there is no merit in this writ petition. As regards the validity of the scheme it has been clearly brought out that the scheme was sanctioned by Respondent No. 1 in accordance with law. The plea of the Petitioners that the scheme was prepared by the Ziledar is not at all tenable. The Ziledar simply renders assistance in preparation of the scheme which was ultimately sanctioned by the Divisional Canal Officer Respondent No. 1. It is now well settled that where the Divisional Canal Officer takes assistance from the subordinate staff while framing a scheme there is no violation of any statutory provisions Preliminary work for preparation of a scheme under Section 30 -A is always got done from the subordinate staff It is on the basis of the data so collected that the scheme is finally sanctioned by the Divisional Canal Officer Therefore, no exception can be taken to the scheme so sanctioned by Respondent No 1.