BHAGWANA Vs. DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Bhag-wana, and respondent 3, Jagde, are landowners in village jandli Kalan, tehsil Fatehabad, district Hissar, while respondents 4 and 5, Roop chand, and Chhabil Dass, are residents of village Khazuri-Jati. Both the villages adjoin each other. The lands of the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5, along with some others, are irrigated through an outlet R. D. 41250 (T. L.-Tail Left ). Khazuri distributary of the Fatehabad Branch System. Respondents 3 to 5 irrigate their lands through a watercourse running along the line between rectangles Nos. 186 and 200, 201 and 200, 203 and 204 and 203 and 219, marked as L M B C on the copy of the Chakplan attached to the petition as Annexure 'a'. This watercourse L m B C is working since the time Khazure Distributary came into operation. The lands of the petitioner situate in Rectangles Nos, 199 and 205 are irrigated from a watercourse running along the eastern line of Rectangle No. 199 and Killa Nos. 5 and 6 of Rectangle No. 205 marked as L A.

(2.) ON May 14, 1964 respondents 3 to 5 gave an application to the Sub-Divisional canal Officer, respondent 2, praying, (i) that the existing watercourse L A be extended to the point marked A on the Chak-plan (Annexure 'a') along the eastern line of Killa Nos. 15, 16 and 25 of Rectangle No. 205, and (ii) that the abandoned watercourse A B be sanctioned so that it may join upto point C. Respondents 3 to 5 are the only persons Interested in this matter but they secured the signatures of a number of other persons on the application. On receipt of this application the sub-Divisional Canal Officer, respondent 2, referred the application to the Ziledar. Bhuna, for a report after investigation. The Ziledar, Bhuna on September 18, 1964, recorded the statement of Jagde Lambardar, respondent 3, In support of the application and also obtained the signatures of Pandit Roop Chand, respondent 4, thereon. There is said to be a statement purporting to have been made by the petitioner on October 29, 1964 on the file of the case to the effect that the petitioner is not agreeable to the suggestion of extending the existing watercourse along Killa Nos. 15, 16 and 25 of Rectangle No. 205. Underneath this statement it has been noted that the petitioner refused to sign his statement. The petitioner alleges that he never knew about the investigation being made by the Ziledar nor did he appear before him nor did he make any such statement. His grievance is that the Ziledar made the record to favour respondents 3 to 5. On November 8, 1964, the Ziledar. Bhuna, sent his report to the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, recommending the extension of the existing watercourse as pray-i ed for by respondents 3 to 5 in their application dated May 14, 1964. On receipt of the above report, the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, on December 1. 1964, Issued notices purporting to be under Section 30-A of the Northern India Canal and drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter called the Act), fixing December 22, 1964, as the date for hearing of the objections before him as Suniana Rest House. The petitioner states that although he was the most vitally affected person by the proposed action of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, no notice was ever sent to or served upon him nor were the mandatory provisions of law complied with. On december 22. 1964, the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer announced his decision sanctioning the watercourse L A and B C under Sections 30-A to 30-F of the Act subject to confirmation and modification by the Divisional Canal Officer, Tohana, respondent 1. as requested by respondents 3 to 5. A copy of the order is Annexure 'b' to the writ petition.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer submitted the papers of the case to the Divisional Canal Officer. Tohana, respondent 1, for his approval under Section 30-B (2) of the Act The petitioner came to know about this matter from a person of his village and since he was adversely affected by the proposed recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, he approched the Divisional canal Officer by way of appeal (although there Is no provision of law providing for an appeal) in the hope that he would get justice from the Divisional Canal Officer who was to sanction that scheme proposed by the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer. The Divisional Canal Officer sanctioned the scheme by his order dated February 7, 1965 and a copy of this order is Annexure 'c' to the writ petition. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition in this Court on March 4, 1965, which was admitted the following day.