Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1552 (PNJ)

Rishiya v. Chief Canal Officer Haryana

2014-11-14

DEEPAK SIBAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Deepak Sibal, J.: - The petitioners hailing from Julani Khera, Tehsil and District Kaithal Haryana, have approached this Court through the present writ seeking quashing of orders passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, dated 22.05.1995 (Annexure P-4), the Superintending Canal Officer, dated 08.12.1995 (Annexure P-5) and the Chief Canal Officer, dated 21.05.1996 (Annexure P-7). Through the orders impugned by the petitioners, all the authorities have accepted the plea of the private respondents and ordered splitting of the existing outlet at RD 78864-R with a new outlet at RD 82400-R Shudkan Distributory. 2. The petitioners challenge the above decisions on the ground that sanctioning the splitting of the existing outlet at RD 78864-R with a new outlet at RD 82400-R Shudkan Distributory is violative of Rule 7 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1976 Rules’) as there was no prior publication of the scheme sanctioning the splitting. The petitioners further submit that the existing scheme for irrigating the area has been there for the last over 50 years and the existing system of irrigation having stood the test of time needs no interference. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submits that there was an interim order passed in the present case that during the pendency of the present petition no splitting be done, and thus, the existing system of irrigation contained but in spite of the same no application was ever moved on behalf of the private respondents showing any difficulty in the existing system of irrigation and thus, it could safely be presumed that the private respondents were satisfied with the same. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents submits that the petitioners belong to village Julani Khera and in para No.6 of the writ petition they have themselves admitted that the scheme was published in village Julani Khera and therefore, the petitioners cannot alleged any violation of Rule 7 of the 1976 Rules. It was wrong on the part of the petitioners to submit that the private respondents had not moved any application during the pendency of the present writ as they was further submitted that had, in fact moved an application for early hearing of the case way back in the year 2003 showing dissatisfaction with the existing scheme of irrigation. It was wrong on the part of the petitioners to submit that the private respondents had not moved any application during the pendency of the present writ as they was further submitted that had, in fact moved an application for early hearing of the case way back in the year 2003 showing dissatisfaction with the existing scheme of irrigation. It was further submitted that all the authorities have concurrently held in favour of the private respondents. The site plan as attached by the private respondents was also referred to show that after splitting of existing outlet at RD 78864-R with a new outlet at RD 82400-R Shudkan Distributory no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners and the same would be in the interest of all the landowners of the area. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, according to me, the present petition deserves to fail. The violation of the Rules, 1976 as alleged on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that no publication was done of the scheme is only to be considered to be rejected. Admittedly, the petitioners belong to village Julani Khera. In para No.6 of the writ petition, they admit that the scheme was published in village Julani Khera. The claim of the petitioners that the existing system of irrigation being there fore the last over 50 years is also a vague assertion as there is no basis for the same on record. Further, the private respondents being dissatisfied with the existing system of irrigation had filed an application for early hearing in the year 2003. This fact clearly belies the claim of the petitioners that the private respondents were always satisfied with the existing system of irrigation. Even otherwise, once all the authorities have considered the entire matter in detail and having concurrently reached a conclusion that splitting of existing outlet at RD 78864-R with a new outlet of RD 82400-R Shudkan Distributory would be in the best interest of all the land owners in the area then normally this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere unless any perversity, factual infirmity or grave prejudice is shown by either parties. After going through the orders by all the authorities, I find them reasonable and justifiable warranting no interference. After going through the orders by all the authorities, I find them reasonable and justifiable warranting no interference. In fact, a perusal of the orders impugned by the petitioners shows that they speaking orders and have been passed after considering the concerns of all the landowners of the area. A perusal of the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, dated 08.12.1995 (Annexure P-5) further shows that the Superintending Canal Officer had himself visited the site and after inspection of the entire area had recommended the splitting of existing outlet at RD 78864-R with a new outlet at RD 82400-R Shudkan Distributory. 6. A perusal of the site plan also convinces me that it would be in the interest of the land owners of the area if in compliance of the orders passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, dated 22.05.1995 (Annexure P-4), the Superintending Canal Officer, dated 08.12.1995 (Annexure P-5) and the Chief Canal Officer, dated 21.05.1996 (Annexure P-7), the new outlet RD 84200-R Shudkan Distributory, is sanctioned. 7. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed but with no order as to costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————