BALWANT Vs. CHIEF CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of order dtd. 6/3/2019 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Chief Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services Unit, Haryana Irrigation and Water Resources Department-respondent No. 1, order dtd. 13/8/2018 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services Circle, Fatehabad-respondent No.2 and order dtd. 21/3/2018 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Tohana Water Services Division-respondent No.3 respectively.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that an earlier attempt made by the private respondents for splitting the RD-8500/L had failed upto this Court when CWP No. 12645 of 2009 titled as 'Ram Kishan and others v. Chief Canal Officer and others' stood dismissed on 16/7/2012 (Annexure P-11). He contends that the said aspect having attained finality upto this Court, fresh application for splitting the said outlet i.e. RD-8500/L could not have been entertained by the authorities. His further contention is that the authorities below have not properly appreciated the fact that the irrigation, which has been governed from RD-8500/L is to the extent of 174% and, therefore, there is no necessity for splitting the said outlet and creating a new outlet for the private respondents. That apart from he asserts that order passed by the Chief Canal Officer is ex-parte as the counsel for the petitioner was not heard while passing the said order.

(3.) There is no dispute that the earlier effort on the part of the private respondents for splitting RD-8500/L had failed, as is apparent from the order dtd. 16/7/2012 passed by this Court in CWP No. 12645 of 2009 (Annexure P- 11). Dismissal of the writ petition would not bar moving an application for the same relief after a considerable period has passed and the circumstances having changed. The reason for making this observation is that the supply of water from the canal to the beneficiaries varies with the passage of time. One of the basic reason could be that earlier the water course was newly laid down and therefore, there was no seepage of water and there was no loss thereof. Present is the case as is apparent from the order passed by the Chief Canal Officer dtd. 6/3/2019, where water-course is said to have been damaged and requires to be re-lined. Those facts having to be taken into consideration apart from the fact that the 174 percentage of irrigation of the land is not merely based upon the canal water, which is supplied but is in addition to the 21 numbers of tubewells which are being run by the co-sharers for irrigation of the land. That apart another aspect which has been highlighted in the impugned order is that the water coming from the tube-wells is saline and the advise of the Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar has been relied upon to conclude that the farmers have been advised not to operate tubewells at large scale and have also been advised to change the pattern of paddy crop.