NATHU Vs. CHIEF CANAL OFFICER HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nathu petitioner is owner of land comprising in Killa Nos. 21, 22/2 of Rectangle No. 86 and Killa No. 1, 29/1 of Rectangle No. 95 in the revenue estate of village Beri Dopana, Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak. The land of the petitioner and other co-shareres including Suraj Bhan respondent No. 3 was being irrigated from out-let bearing No. RD 9218-L Jhajjar Distributary of village Beri Dopana. The petitioner alleges that the sanctioned Khal K1, K2, K3 as shown in the site plan attached with the petition as Annexure P-1 runs along the Southern and Easter boundary of his land. On the application of Suraj Bhan respondent No. 3 and others, the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Jhajjar under Section 24(3) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act (hereinafter called the Act) vide his order dated 20.6.1984, illegally ordered the restoration of the imaginary Khal K3 as shown in the site plan which resulted in bifurcating the land of the petitioner in two blocks. The petitioner filed appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, MITC, Haryana against the said order which was wrongly rejected on 28.7.1984. The petitioner then resorted to file a civil suit for permanent injunction wherein the Sub Judge restrained the defendants from digging any water-course through the land of the petitioner in pursuance of the order of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer and Divisional Canal Officer till the disposal of the suit. The appeal filed by respondent No. 3 against that order was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Rohtak. Thereafter, on the request of Suraj Bhan respondent No. 3 and other co-sharers, the Canal authorities prepared a scheme under Section 17 of the Act for sanctioning of the link watercourse. The learned Divisional Canal Officer, after hearing both the parties, vide his order dated 26.7.1985 restored the water-course to its original site K 1, K 2 and K 3 as shown in the plan Annexure P-1. On the appeal filed by Suraj Bhan respondent No. 3 and others, the Superintending Canal Officer, Western Jumma Canal West Circle, Rohtak vide his order dated 22.10.1985 vacated the above referred decision of the Divisional Canal Officer by holding that the water-course having already been sanctioned by the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation upto the level of the Chief Canal Officer could not be interfered with by the Divisional Canal Officer. The petitioner then resorted to filing the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 28.7.1986 Annexure P-3 of the Chief Canal Officer, MITC, Chandigarh restoring the Khal at site NK on the ground that he has not passed the speaking order. It is further mentioned that respondent No. 1 has failed to take into consideration that water-course NK 3 would bifurcate the land holdings of the petitioner into two blocks and would disturb the functioning of his tube well. It was also averred that respondent No. 1 failed to take into consideration the fact that water-course NK 3 is a lengthy one whereas the other water-course is more suitable for irrigation of the land. In was also contended that Suraj Bhan respondent and others must be irrigating their land from other water-courses. As per entries in the Khasra Girdawari, they are growing crops with the help of canal water.