Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1130 (MP)

KUMAR SINGH BHATI v. STATE OF M P

2009-09-15

A.K.PATNAIK, AJIT SINGH

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner, who is an agriculturist from village Chapar, Tahsil Astha, District Sehore. He has prayed for a direction against the respondents to construct the canals for which lands of villagers were acquired and irrigation cess collected from the farmers be refunded. The petitioner has also prayed for an inquiry against the erring officers who have misappropriated huge amount of Government money by wrongly showing on papers that the construction work of canals was completed. ( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are these. A pilot project for the construction of dam and canals was prepared by the State Government under a Rehabilitation of minor Irrigation Tank Scheme. The project was given administrative approval on 29. 11. 19-77 and 311. 33 acres of land of different villagers in Tahsil Astha was acquired. The State Government also sanctioned Rs. 43. 75 lakh for the project. The project provided for the construction of dam in village Chapar and canals to extend irrigation facilities to 520 acres of land in the command area. Under the project, 200 chains of Right Bank Canal, 110 chains of Left Bank Canal and 60 chains of Minor Canal were to be constructed. The farmers to be benefited by the construction of dam and canals for irrigation were of villages Chapar, Killod, dhankhedi, Deoli, Kelapani and Arniya Johri, all in Tahsil Astha. ( 3. ) THE case of petitioner is that although dam in Chapar was constructed in the year 1979, the canals were never constructed and, therefore, the farmers have been deprived of irrigation facilities proposed for them under the project. According to him, in the year 1994-95 the State Government sanctioned Rs. 43. 65 lakh for the construction of canals but the concerned officers, without constructing canals, misappropriated the amount by preparing a false report that construction work of canals had been completed. The petitioner has also averred that the officers of Water Resources Department, in order to cover up their misdeeds, have illegally recovered irrigation cess from him and other farmers vide receipts. Annexures P13 and P14. The petitioner has also averred that the officers of Water Resources Department, in order to cover up their misdeeds, have illegally recovered irrigation cess from him and other farmers vide receipts. Annexures P13 and P14. The grievance of petitioner is that although various representations and complaints were made to the State Government for the construction of canals, as provided in the project and also for taking action against the erring officers of Irrigation/water Resources Department, none of them was met with a positive response and hence he was constrained to file the present petition. ( 4. ) THE respondents in their return filed on 19. 5. 2001 have stated that the construction work of 103 chains of Right Bank Canal, 110 chains of Left Bank canal and 60 chains of Minor Canal was completed by the year 1995-96 and by constructing these canals irrigation facilities were being provided to lands 82. 99 hectares in village Chapar, 10. 63 hectares in village Kelapani and 161. 38 hectares in village Arniya Johri i. e. during the year 1993-94 total 255. 00 hectares were irrigated in these three villages. The respondents have also stated that up to 1995-96 Rs. 43. 75 lakh was spent in the construction of dam and canals and after 1995 no construction work was undertaken due to paucity of funds and a proposal for the sanction of Rs. 75. 60 lakh was pending with the State Government for completion of remaining work. ( 5. ) AS the above claim of respondents regarding construction of canals Was seriously disputed by the petitioner, we, by our order dated 2. 2. 2009, directed the registrar (Vigilance) (I) of this Court to make a spot inspection in the presence of representatives of the petitioner and State Government and submit a report. ( 6. ) THE Registrar (Vigilance) (I), visited the spot on 20. 2. 2009 in the presence of all concerned and submitted his report dated 25. 2. 2009. The report states that there is an earthen canal on the eastern end at right side of dam, which is not in a running condition. ( 6. ) THE Registrar (Vigilance) (I), visited the spot on 20. 2. 2009 in the presence of all concerned and submitted his report dated 25. 2. 2009. The report states that there is an earthen canal on the eastern end at right side of dam, which is not in a running condition. The report indicates that canal, after the distance of about 25 to 30 feet from the dam, is divided into two sub-canals i. e. Right Bank Canal and left Bank Canal and the existence of Right Bank Canal was found only up to 500 meters whereas the Left Bank Canal was in a form of small drain and its existence was visible only up to 45 meters. Beyond this limit, the report says that the visibility of both these sub-canals was lost amidst big grasses and thorny bushes and virtually they ceased to exist any further The report further states that the above canal structures were on lands which partly belong to village Kelapani and partly to village Arniya Johri and the agricultural fields of only 8 to 10 persons of village kelapani and 10 to 15 persons of village Arniya Johri were being irrigated. The report also clearly mentions that no canals were found in existence nor was there any visible evidence of any such construction having ever been undertaken for irrigation of agricultural fields of villages, Chapar, Killod, Dhankhedi and Deoli. ( 7. ) A copy of the. report was ordered to be given to the Principal Secretary of water Resources Department who responded by filing an affidavit dated 22. 8. 2009 stating that lining work in the canals and their maintenance could not be done due to non-allocation of funds and only earthwork to some extent was executed. According to him, with the passage of time due to silting and filling of canals and because of non-maintenance, the canal work had deteriorated and lost its original section in some portions. The Principal Secretary has further stated in the affidavit that a proposal for the sanction of Rs. 143. 90 lakh to complete the project was pending and as soon as the proposal would be approved, project work will be completed. The Principal Secretary has further stated in the affidavit that a proposal for the sanction of Rs. 143. 90 lakh to complete the project was pending and as soon as the proposal would be approved, project work will be completed. Since we found the affidavit of Principal Secretary to be inconsistent with the earlier stand taken before this Court in the return that the canal work was completed and irrigation facilities through such canals were provided, we directed him and Executive Engineer to explain as to what extent canal was completed out of the fund of Rs. 43. 75 lakh, ( 8. ) ON 3. 3. 2009 the respondents filed an additional return and stated that out of rs. 43. 75 lakh, the amount spent in the construction of dam was Rs. 36. 61 lakh and only Rs. 7. 14 lakh was spent in the construction of canals. The additional return also states that although the canals were constructed, as stated in the first return, no cement and concreting work was done in the canals as neither the work of cement lining nor concreting was sanctioned and in the absence of any budget for maintenance, the maintenance of canals could not be done. ( 9. ) WE intend to first examine whether there is sufficient material for directing an inquiry or investigation on the allegation that a huge amount of Government money has been misappropriated by the officers of Water Resources Department. The petitioner has alleged that although the dam was constructed in the year 1973, the canals were never constructed and the officers misappropriated the amount of Rs. 43. 65 lakh meant for the construction of canals after preparing a false report that its construction work had been completed. The respondents in their first return denied the allegation and took a stand that the canal work was completed in the Right Bank Canal up to 103 chains, in Left Bank Canal up to 110 chains and Minor Canal up to 60 chains in the year 1995-96 and irrigation facilities were provided to a total of 255 hectares of land in villages Chapar, Kelapani and arniya Johri. A report dated 25. 2. A report dated 25. 2. 2009 of the Registrar (Vigilance) (I) of this court clearly indicates that the canals are virtually non-existent after some distance from the dam and the lands of only very few persons of villages Kelapani and arniya Johri were getting irrigation facilities. After the report of Registrar (Vigilance) (I), the respondents have now taken a stand that since no lining and concreting work was done in the canals and maintenance fund was not allocated, the canal work deteriorated and lost its original section in some portions. It is to be noted that Registrar (Vigilance) (I) has also reported that neither the canals were found in existence nor were they found constructed for irrigation of agricultural fields in villages Chapar, Killod, Dhankhedi and Deoli. These averments, particularly the stand taken by the respondents after the receipt of report of Registrar (Vigilance) (I), create a serious doubt in our mind that the canals were ever constructed as per the project. And the truth must be unearthed which, in the present case, can only be done by an inquiry or investigation through an independent agency. We accordingly request the Lokayukt of the State of Madhya Pradesh to have the allegation of misappropriation of Rs. 43. 75 lakh by the officers of Water Resources Department inquired or investigated and take such necessary action which he may deem proper after the receipt of report of inquiry or investigation. ( 10. ) AS regards the prayer of petitioner that irrigation cess collected from the farmers be directed to be refunded, we are of the considered view that no general direction of such nature can be ordered in this petition. The respondents have taken a stand that irrigation cess was collected only from those farmers who were provided irrigation facilities through the dam and canals. Rule 139 of the madhya Pradesh Irrigation Rules, 1974 provides for refund or adjustment of excess recovery of irrigation cess by the Superintending Engineer. Thus, if any individual farmer has a grievance against illegal or excess recovery of irrigation cess, he can apply for the refund or adjustment of the same before the Superintending engineer who, on receiving such an application, will decide the same on its merit. ( 11. Thus, if any individual farmer has a grievance against illegal or excess recovery of irrigation cess, he can apply for the refund or adjustment of the same before the Superintending engineer who, on receiving such an application, will decide the same on its merit. ( 11. ) LASTLY, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against the respondents to construct the canals so that irrigation facilities which were proposed to villagers under the project be extended to them. We find that 311. 33 acres of land in Tahsil astha was acquired to provide irrigation facilities to 520 acres of land. This was done as far back as in the year 1977 and the dam was constructed in the year 1979. But the canals are virtually non-existent and a proposal for completing the construction of canal work is pending since long. In the result, the villagers are being deprived of irrigation facilities. We, therefore, direct the respondents to immediately consider and take a decision on the proposal so that construction work of canals is completed without any further delay. We are constrained to give this direction because the benefit for which the dam was constructed is not reaching the villagers even after two decades of its completion. ( 12. ) THE petition is allowed as indicated in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the order. Petition allowed.