Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab and others

Surinder Singh, J. (Oral)

A purposeless litigation in regard to the turn of water of a Khal which is alleged by the petitioner to be a private Khal has, after being rooted through the various Authorities under the Canal Act with a seesaw of decisions, reached this Court in a writ petition filed by the petitioner Balwant Singh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, as per which he has impugned the final order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur, dated November 26, 19969 (Copy Annexure ''E'').

The case of the petitioner at best as averred in the writ petition is, that there was an agreement in regard to the taking of turn of water from water course in question between the petitioner and Punjab Singh respondent No. 5, according to which Punjab Singh had agreed to take his turn prior to that of the petitioner. This arrangement continued for some years but later on Punjab Singh revised the same by approaching the Deputy Collector, Abohar, in the matter. The said Officer after notice to the parties concerned, considered the matter and passed the order on June 5, 1969 (Copy Annexure ''C''). A perusal of the said order particularly para 4 thereof would indicate that it is specifically mentioned that both the contesting parties had agreed to the arrangement as fixed by the Deputy Collector, this arrangement being that the respondent Punjab Singh would take the turn of water earlier to that of Balwant Singh petitioner. Inspite of this order being the result of an agreement between the parties, the petitioner appears to have made a grievance of the same before the Division Canal Officer, Abohar Division. The said officer as per decision (Copy Annexure ''D'') reversed the agreed order passed by the Deputy Collector and allowed the petitioner to have his turn of water after that of Punjab Singh respondent, mainly on the ground that there was some agreement between the parties in that behalf at the earlier stage. The matter, however, did not end there as respondent No. 5 filed a revision petition under section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 before the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur. The said Officer held that as the holdings of Balwant Singh petitioner fell prior to that of Punjab Singh respondent, the former will get turn of his war prior to Punjab Singh. He accordingly fixed the war in that agreement. It is not disputed that this order was implemented on December 17, 1969. The present writ petition was filed after the passing of this order.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that two material circumstances are enough to nonsuit the petitioner in this writ petition. Firstly, the order obtained by the petitioner from the Deputy Collector, Abohar (Annexure ''C'') was an agreed order as is apparent from the mention thereof in the order itself. No appeal could lie against such an agreed order and I fail to understand how the learned Division Canal Officer upset the order of the Deputy Collector by giving certain other reasons and ignoring the fact that the order was agreed between the parties. Apart from this, the final order has been passed by the Superintending Canal Officer and the same is in consonance with the rules in regard to the turn of water as mentioned in para 8 of the Appendix E of the Revenue Manual of the Irrigation Branch of the P.W.D. Punjab. The learned counsel for the petitioner, has, however, contended that these rules would not be applicable to the case of the present water course which was only a private watercourse and the turn of water of the said watercourse was originally fixed as a result of an agreement between the parties. If this is so, it would be a civil dispute between the parties for which the forum for settlement would neither be the Canal Authorities, nor this Court by way of writ petition.

There is no force in this writ petition and the same is consequently dismissed, but with no order as to costs.