HARDAYAL KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hardayal Kaur-petitioner is a right-holder of village Rampura, Tehsil and District Bhatinda. She made an application for allowance of special supply of canal water for a fruit orchard to be planted in 3.90 acres of land in village Rampura. She entered into an agreement on July 15, 1962 with the Canal Authorities and supply of extra water to her fields was commenced. The Superintending Engineer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Bhatinda, through whom the State has been made a party in this behalf, passed an order on July 17, 1967, copy of which is Annexure B to this petition, whereby he ordered that the enhanced supply of canal water to the unplanted garden area of 99.24 acres (which included the lands of the petitioner) be withdrawn. In pursuance of this order, the Deputy Collector reduced the supply of water to the petitioner and framed a new warabandi vide his order dated November 30, 1967. The main grievance of the petitioner is that before passing the impugned order dated July 17, 1967, the Superintending Engineer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Bhatinda, did not call the petitioner and hear her. None of the right-holders was heard. By the impugned order the rights of the petitioner for getting enhanced water supply have been curtailed but she was given no opportunity to present her view point before the passing of this order. In the return, this assertion has not been controverted. The impugned order also does not show that the petitioner or any other right-holder was heard.

(2.) Mr. S.K. Syal, the learned counsel for the State, tried to state that the petitioner was heard by the Deputy Collector. This is no reply to the plea of the petitioner. The Deputy Collector heard the petitioner only while fixing the warabandi in compliance with the impugned order dated July 17, 1967 of the Superintending Engineer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Bhatinda. The Superintending Engineer admittedly has not heard the petitioner. Consequently, this order deserves to be quashed.

(3.) There is another flaw in the order. As per terms of the agreement, the orchard had to be inspected by the Food Specialist, Punjab, or the Divisional Canal Officer and if they were satisfied that the orchard had not been planted, then the right-holder had to be given a six months' notice for withdrawal of the extra supply, and the supply was to be withdrawn before the second year was over, and that too if there was a fresh joint report by the notice period that the orchard was not satisfactory. Admittedly, this clause of the agreement has also been violated. Mr. Syal tried to argue that the Deputy Collector had found that no orchard had been planted. The Deputy Collector is not authorised to do anything under the agreement. So there is a clear violation of the agreement.