BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral) - Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dtd. 24/6/2019 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Chief Canal officer, Bhakra Water Services Unit, Haryana Irrigation and W.R. Department, Panchkula, whereby application of Jagdev Singh son of Bhagwant Singh-respondent No. 5 for providing a culvert of the revenue estate of village boundary of Neelanwali and Panniwala Ruldu, which is owned by the said respondent on both sides of watercourse at point 86/85/1 min. i.e. 8 karam (South) from the common killa line of Rectangle of Killa No. 86//16-25, has been allowed.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the canal authorities do not have jurisdiction to provide culvert over the water-course when it is between two different estates. It is contended by him that the application preferred by respondent No. 5 was dismissed by the Divisional Canal officer, Sirsa, vide order dtd. 2/4/2012 on the ground that the path in the revenue estate of Village Neelanwali has been left in consolidation proceedings to reach up to the land holding of respondent No. 5 and another path in the revenue estate of Village Panniwala Ruldu up to the land of the said respondent is also available and, therefore, no need to construct culvert over the watercourse so as to reach both the land holdings in the ownership of respondent No. 5 is made out. Appeal of respondent No. 5 before the Superintending Canal officer, Bhakra Water Services Circle, Sirsa, was dismissed on 5/2/2013 (Annexure P-4). His further appeal before the Chief Canal officer, Bhakra Water Services, Irrigation and Water Services Department, Haryana, was dismissed by the said authority on 28/11/2013 (Annexure P-5). Thereafter he had approached this Court by filing CWP No. 10290 of 2014 titled as Jagdev Singh v. Chief Canal officer and others which was disposed of by this Court by observing that the order dtd. 28/11/2013 passed by the Chief Canal officer, Panchkula, was a non-speaking order and, therefore, not sustainable. The said order was set aside and the matter remitted back to the same authority for decision afresh after hearing the parties. Counsel submits that it is after the remand that the Chief Canal officer, Panchkula, had proceeded to allow the application of respondent No. 5 and direction for construction of culvert on the lined watercourse was accorded subject to all expenditure to be incurred by the appellant (respondent No. 5 herein) in construction of culvert at the suitable place in Rectangle/Killa No. 86//25 Village Neelanwali according to the satisfaction of the officers of the department without using the land of the petitioner. He, thus, contends that the order dtd. 24/6/2019 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Chief Canal officer is not sustainable in the light of the fact that there is no provision under Sec. 17 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act to prepare the scheme regarding construction of culvert on the water-course. He contends that respondent No. 5 has already got proper access to his field as two separate paths in consolidation have been left out for providing approach to respondent No. 5 to his fields. He, thus, contends that the impugned order cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, have gone through the orders passed by the authorities as well as the impugned order dtd. 24/6/2019 passed by the Chief Canal officer, BWS Unit, Haryana Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Panchkula, but do not find myself in agreement with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner.