MADAN LAL Vs. GOPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, challenge is to order dated 10.9.1982 passed by the Chief Canal Officer, Hissar whereby orders dated 20.5.1982 and 22.11.1981 passed by Superintending Canal Officer and Divisional Canal Officer respectively have been set aside.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that respondents No. 1 to 3 are shareholders and their land was being irrigated from outlet RD 26495-L of Jakhaud Distributary. They applied to the Divisional Canal Officer for inclusion of their Chak in outlet RD 29245-L. On receipt of application, a scheme was framed and published for inviting objections. The petitioners, objected to the scheme. Divisional Canal Officer, vide order dated 22.11.1981 though held that the demand of respondents No. 1 to 3 is quite genuine but declined their prayer for transferring their area from one outlet to another on the ground that unless the question of sharing of watercourse is decided, any decision regarding transfer of that area will be meaningless. In appeal, the Superintending Canal Officer upheld the order of the Divisional Canal Officer. The Superintending Canal Officer was further of the view that since respondents No. 1 to 3 are irrigating their land from outlet RD 29245-L for a number of years and the shareholders of outlet RD 29245-L are opposed to the transfer of area of respondents No. 1 to 3 from one outlet to another, it will not be proper to shift the outlet. In appeal preferred under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Chief Canal Officer, however, set aside orders of Divisional Canal Officer and Superintending Canal Officer and ordered transfer of area from outlet RD 29245-L to outlet RD 29245-L on certain conditions like payment of costs etc. Order of Chief Canal Officer is being challenged here in this petition on the ground that the Chief Canal Officer has not given any plausible reason for setting aside orders of Divisional Canal Officer and Superintending Canal Officer.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that on an application filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 for transferring of their area from one outlet to another, a Scheme was framed by the Divisional Canal Officer and petitioners who were opposed to the Scheme, filed objections. The claim of respondents No. 1 to 3 for transferring of area from one outlet to another was found to be genuine by Divisional Canal Officer but was rejected because he was of the opinion that the question involved is in regard to sharing of watercourse and the same can be decided only if respondents No. 1 to 3 take consent of other shareholders of outlet No. RD 29245-L or apply under suitable section of the Act.