Darshan Singh and Another vs The Superintending Canal Officer and Others

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.10.2003, Annexure P3, passed by Superintending Cancel Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur, vide which the order dated 20.2.2003. Annexure P-1, passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar, Canal Division, Abohar has been set aside and the application u/s 30-B(3) of the Northern Indian Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, filed by respondents No. 3 to 6 for sanctioning of new outlet after splitting the old one has been allowed.

Counsel for the petitioners contends that the existing water course i.e. outlet No. 15093/L was having the capacity to meet the requirement of 514 acres of land. From this outlet, 2/3rd area of the land will be shifted under the impugned order, with the result that only 167 acres of land being 1/3rd will be left to the existing water course. He further contends that because of the said split, the proper irrigation will not be possible from the existing outlet, as the flow of water will be less. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Superintending Canal Officer, while passing the impugned order, did not record proper reason and the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 was allowed only by observing that the splitting of the old out let and sanctioning of the new out let will be in the interest of better irrigation of the entire area. Therefore, the said order, which is non-speaking is liable to be set aside and the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer should be restored. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon decision of this Court in Darshan Singh Vs. Superintending Canal Officer and Others, wherein it has been observed that even the quasi judicial authorities have to arrive at a conclusion by passing a reasoned order, particularly when rights of the parties are to be effected.

On the other hand, counsel for respondents No. 3 to 6 submitted that their area falls at a distance from the existing out let, due to which proper irrigation was not possible. Therefore, keeping in view the possibility of better irrigation, a request for sanctioning of a new outlet by splitting the old one was made. It has been submitted that new out let has been sanctioned by the order of the appellate authority and all the expenditure for providing the new out let will be borne by them. Counsel for respondents No. 3 to 6 contended that by taking out 2/3rd area from the out let and shifting the same to the new out let, no loss of any kind has been caused to the petitioners. The area of the petitioners will be irrigated from existing out let.

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. We are of the opinion that the Superintending Canal Officer has given reasons for allowing the appeal. It has been observed that sanctioning of the new out let will provide better irrigation and increased the production and further the petitioners will not suffer any loss with the sanction of the new out let, as they will continue to irrigate their land from the existing out let. Therefore, keeping in view the principle of better irrigation and production, the Superintending Canal Officer has rightly passed the impugned order. We do not find any jurisdictional error in the said order nor counsel for the petitioners could point out any perversity or error apparent on the record.

Dismissed.