Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 16 (PNJ)

Chhota Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer

2012-01-03

PARAMJEET SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT PARAMJEET SINGH, J. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 13.07.2007 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. 2 Divisional Canal Officer and for quashing of order dated 27.03.2008 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No. 1 Superintending Canal Officer, under the provisions of Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 3 Jaspal Singh moved an application to the Canal Authorities praying that his land measuring 10.09/8.08 acres GA/CCA be withdrawn from the chak of outlet No. 301409-R Bathinda Branch and the same be included in the chak of outlet No. 1000-R, Rajbah Bhaini and further an area measuring 2.01 acres be declared as commandable from un-commandable. It is stated that there is no watercourse to the area from the existing outlet and the watercourse of the proposed outlet goes quite near to the land owned by respondent No. 3. On notice, the petitioners appeared before the Divisional Canal Officer and raised objections that the outlet No. 1000-R Rajbah Bhaini is set up for the area belonging to Village Sidhana and for the area belonging to Village Harnam Singh Wala outlet No. 301409-R Bathinda Branch is running and the area of respondent No. 3 falls within the Village Harnam Singh Wala, which cannot be included in Chak No. 1000-R, Rajbah Bhaini. As such, the petitioners submitted that the transfer of the area from outlet No. 301409-R, Bathinda Branch to outlet No. 1000-R, Rajbah Bhaini under Section 20 and 30 of the Act is not permissible and declaring the area as commandable from un-commandable is also not permissible. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the application of respondent No. 3 Jaspal Singh has been wrongly recommended by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sehna for exclusion of 10.09/8.08 acres GA/CCA area from outlet No. 301409-R Bathinda Branch and to include the same in the chak of outlet No. 1000-R Rajbah Bhaini and the recommendation to declare 2.01 acres area as commandable from un-commandable is also without any reason. The said recommendation has been wrongly accepted by the Divisional Canal Officer vide order dated 13.07.2007 (Annexure P/2). The said recommendation has been wrongly accepted by the Divisional Canal Officer vide order dated 13.07.2007 (Annexure P/2). Admittedly, there is no watercourse from the existing outlet No. 301409-R and the watercourse from the proposed outlet No. 1000-R is quite near to the land of respondent No. 3. I am not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that authorities have no power to shift the area. The concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Divisional Canal Officer, as well as, the Superintending Canal Officer that no watercourse is in existence from outlet No. 301409-R, whereas, watercourse from the proposed outlet No. 1000-R is very near to the land of respondent No. 3 Jaspal Singh. It is also specifically held by the authorities that the area of respondent No.3 can be irrigated through flow irrigation. There is no reason to decline the transfer of area to the flow area. This Court called report from the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana. The report dated 15.04.2011 has been filed by the Superintending Canal Officer after inspecting the spot on 16.03.2011 in the presence of field staff and the concerned shareholders including the petitioners and respondent No.3. It is pointed out in the report that outlet RD 1000-R of Bhaini Disty is installed to take its authorized discharge of 3.020 cs. and with the inclusion of 10.09 Acres to this outlet, the required authorized discharge will be 3.050 cs. Hence, with the inclusion of 10.09 Acres, the difference of present discharge will be less than 1% i.e. 0.99% only. As per Revenue Manual the adjustment of outlet is not required if the difference in discharge is less than 10% and in this case it is less than 1%. Annexure R-1 with the report shows the comparison of the area and discharge of outlets. Difference of discharge of outlet of 1000-R of Bhaini Disty is only 0.99%. As per Revenue Manual the adjustment of outlet is not required if the difference in discharge is less than 10% and in this case it is less than 1%. Annexure R-1 with the report shows the comparison of the area and discharge of outlets. Difference of discharge of outlet of 1000-R of Bhaini Disty is only 0.99%. Further, the Superintending Canal Officer in his report has concluded as under:- "In this case, the difference of discharge or reduction of discharge with the inclusion of area is 0.99% whereas, as per Revenue Manual the adjustment of outlet is not required if the difference in discharge is less than 10% whereas in this case the difference of discharge is less than 1%." In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Superintending Canal Officer and specifically report dated 15.04.2011 and Annexure R-1 attached with the report, coupled with the rules which say that if the discharge difference is more than 10%, then adjustment of the outlet is necessary. Here is a case where the difference of discharge is only 0.99% which is much less than 10%. As such, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners nor a change is required for changing the size of the outlet. The finding of the Divisional Canal Officer has been affirmed by the Superintending Canal Officer, although, the order is not detailed one but in the report of the Superintending Canal Officer entire position has been explained. The Canal Authorities are expert in their field. Since the findings of the authorities are that if the area of respondent No. 4 (Jaspal Singh) is shifted to the 1000-R of Rajbah Bhaini, distributory then irrigation of the land of Jaspal Singh can be by flow and already watercourse is in existence near to his field on that side. As area can be irrigated by flow on shifting, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders of the Canal Authorities, specifically when no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners. Irrigation is required to grow more food which is needed by the country. There is no equity in favour of the petitioners. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Canal Authorities. No merit. Dismissed.