Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1024 (HP)

Gian Dass Negi v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-05-30

SANDEEP SHARMA, SANJAY KAROL

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J —Prior to filing of instant writ petition, petitioner had approached this Court by way of CWP No.300 of 2017, portraying therein his grievance with regard to unequal distribution of water by the authorities for irrigation. Petitioner alleged that residents of village Brelingi are getting less water than the residents of Kalpa. Learned Single Judge of this Court, taking note of averments contained in that petition, disposed of the same vide order dated 23.2.2017 and directed Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur to look into the grievances of the petitioner and to take decision within two weeks. Pursuant to aforesaid directions contained in order dated 23.2.2017, Deputy Commissioner, District Kinnaur at Reckong Peo passed order dated 23.9.2017, whereby he, with a view to do complete justice, ordered that the area should be calculated and water per hour be distributed on the basis of area. Deputy Commissioner constituted a Committee, headed by Tehsildar, Kalpa, and directed it to submit proposal to redistribute the water and time schedule Mohal-wise with the intimation to each land owner. Deputy Commissioner also directed SDM Kalpa-cum-Chairman, Boktu Kuhl to issue orders on the basis of recommendation of the Committee for redistribution of water of Boktu Kuhl. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by Deputy Commissioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein the following main reliefs:- "1. That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and Annexure P-4 may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed again to monitor the regulation and proper allocation of the waters of the Boktu Kuhl in accordance with the Abhiana register and revenue records of the concerned beneficiary in a time bound manner that is before the commencing spring harvest season of 2018" 3. Having carefully perused order dated 23.9.2017 (Annexure P-4) , we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the same because Deputy Commissioner vide aforesaid order had only constituted a Committee, who had to submit proposal to redistribute water and time schedule Mohal-wise with the intimation to each land owner. Having carefully perused order dated 23.9.2017 (Annexure P-4) , we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the same because Deputy Commissioner vide aforesaid order had only constituted a Committee, who had to submit proposal to redistribute water and time schedule Mohal-wise with the intimation to each land owner. It is not understood as to in what manner petitioner can be aggrieved with the aforesaid order, rather Deputy Commissioner, taking note of grievance raised by present petitioner, ordered for fresh exercise to be carried out by Committee so that water is distributed equally amongst all stakeholders. 4. In nutshell case of the petitioner is that the villagers of village Kalpa had more water per hour than villagers of village Brelingi, Tehsil Kalpa from the Boktu Kuhl. The Boktu Kuhl is a scheduled Kuhl and regulated by Himachal Pradesh Minor Canals Act, 1976, wherein the Collector has been defined as a District Collector. Farming/cultivation in the said village depends on irrigation Kuhl (water canal) and Boktu Kuhl water is a natural source to which the petitioner as well as other residents of the area are entitled as they are having small farming land in their respective villages. 5. As per petitioner, irrigated land in Kalpa is 59-71-69 hectares and that of village Brelingi is 27-55-20 hectares, the area is almost double, but, water supplied to Kalpa is almost five times more than village Brelingi. Abhiana charged from 2009-2016 for village Kalpa is 7545.56, whereas from village Brelingi it is 3465.57, which clearly suggests that it is nearly a half of village Kalpa. As per petitioner, irrigation water for Kalpa is already for 10 days, which has further been increased by 2 days and 2 nights, whereas, irrigational area of village Brelingi is 27-55-20 hectare, but, residents of village Brelingi are getting water for 2 days and 12 hours. 6. Respondents by way of reply have categorically refuted the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and have contended that as per Abhiana record maintained by the department, the irrigated area of Mohal Kalpa and Brelingi is 59- 71-69 hectares and 27-55-20 hectares respectively and the Abhiana charged for Mohal Kalpa and Brelingi is Rs.3418.23 and Rs.1597.07 respectively. 6. Respondents by way of reply have categorically refuted the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and have contended that as per Abhiana record maintained by the department, the irrigated area of Mohal Kalpa and Brelingi is 59- 71-69 hectares and 27-55-20 hectares respectively and the Abhiana charged for Mohal Kalpa and Brelingi is Rs.3418.23 and Rs.1597.07 respectively. It has further been submitted in the affidavit that period of 10 days, which was further increased by 2 days and 2 nights, was not solely for village Kalpa, but, for Gram Vikas Committee Kalpa, which further distributes the water to five more Mohals; namely; Shudarang Raang, Kalpa, Sariyo and Awal Chini with respective area of 61-24-87 hectare, 51-95-48 hectares, 59-71-69 hectares, 63-98-82 hectare and 70-22-88 hectares because no separate village Committees exist for the rest of four Mohals. Respondents have further stated before this Court that meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalpa at Reckong Peo, wherein it was decided that both the Mohals i.e. Kalpa and Brelingi shall be distributed equal share of water (72 hours/3 days) in compliance to the order of the High Court dated 17.1.2018, despite the fact that irrigated area of Mohal Kalpa is almost double than Mohal Brelingi. 7. Latest affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Kalpa at Reckong Peo, clearly suggests that pursuant to directions contained in order dated 23.2.2017, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.300 of 2017, a Committee was constituted by Deputy Commissioner for ensuring equal distribution of water. Perusal of order dated 8.3.2018, passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalpa at Reckong Peo, clearly suggests that water of Boktu Kuhl has been ordered to be re-distributed as per details of the irrigated area of Mohals irrigated by Boktu Kuhl, as verified by the Assistant Engineer IPH Sub Division, Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur. Careful perusal of aforesaid order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalpa at Reckong Peo, clearly suggests that villages Kalpa and Brelingi have been ordered to be given water equally for 72 hours (3 days) each and, as such, grievance of petitioner stands duly redressed. Careful perusal of aforesaid order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalpa at Reckong Peo, clearly suggests that villages Kalpa and Brelingi have been ordered to be given water equally for 72 hours (3 days) each and, as such, grievance of petitioner stands duly redressed. It clearly emerge from the record that since Gram Vikas Committee Kalpa further distributes the water to five more Mohals, as have been taken noticed hereinabove, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalpa at Reckong Peo, on the recommendation of Committee has specified time schedule for supply of water to other Mohals i.e. Shudarang, Raang, Kalpa, Sariyo and Awal Chini to which petitioner cannot have any objection. 8. Having carefully perused material placed on record by respondents, this Court is convinced and satisfied that water from Boktu Kuhl is being distributed equally amongst all the stakeholders and, as such, nothing survives in the present petition. 9. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, this petition is disposed of with the direction to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalpa at Reckong Peo to continue with the distribution of water for irrigation purposes from Boktu Kuhl, as per office order dated 8.3.2018, so that no discrimination is done to any of the stakeholder including the petitioner. 10. Interim direction, if any, is vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.