BIRBAL RAM Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this Writ petition has challenged the order (Ex. 1) dated 4 -11 -1982 of the Executive Engineer, Pilibanga Division (Irrigation) Hanumangarh, and the order (Ex. 2) dated 29 -4 -1983 of the Superintending Engineer, Bhakra Irrigation Circle, Hanuman Garh. The petitioner is a resident of Chak No. 38 PBN District Sri Ganganagar. The petitioner had his agricultural land in Chak No. 38 PBN being Murabba No. 57 of 378. The petitioner is getting a regular supply of water for irrigation from Naka at stone No. 57/378. Non -petitioner No. 3 Maluram has also agricultural land in Chak No. 38 PBN being Murabba No. 57/377. Non -petitioner No. 3 moved a complaint that because of big ditch, he is not getting regular supply of water, therefore, petitioner should be asked to repair the same. Then again on 2nd November, 1982, non -petitioner No. 3 filed a complaint but no notice was served upon the petitioner, nor petitioner got any knowledge of the same. The non -petitioner No. 2 without any notice to the petitioner and without hearing him, passed the order changing the Naka and water course of the petitioner from stone No. 57/378 to 257/379 to the serious prejudice of the petitioner. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, but the same was dismissed on 29 -4 -1983. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. A return has been filed by the respondents. They have denied the allegation of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was directed to maintain the ditch on the complaint filed by non -petitioner No. 3, but petitioner did not comply with the order and, thereafter, the Executive Engineer issued a notice under Rule 4(2) of the Rules and invited objections. Neither the petitioner nor any person made any objection in time. It was also stated that the petitioner stated that the maintenance of ditch is not possible for him. A copy of the statement has been filed, which is on record. It is alleged that the petitioner deliberately suppressed this fact. Thus, on account of inability of the petitioner, a notice under Rule 4(2) was issued and, thereafter, this change was effected. Mr. K.C. Samdariya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under Section 18 of the Irrigation Act, this order cannot be passed of changing of the Naka by the Executive Engineer. I am afraid, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be well -founded. It is a Divisional Irrigation Officer, who is competent to change the water course and that the Executive Engineer, after considering the matter and after going on the site, has found that because of inability of the petitioner to cover a ditch, the out -let of the water supply to the non -petitioner No. 3 was changed and this finding has been affirmed by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation.

(2.) THUS , in view, of the concurrent finding of fact, I do not think myself persuaded that the view taken by both the Irrigation Authorities warrants any interference by this Court.