Mani Ram vs Deputy Collector, Rori Division and Another

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—The petitioner is a resident of village Mattuwala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. Respondent No. 4 is also resident of the said village and both of them are having lands in the same village. The petitioner moved an application u/s 55 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Deputy Collector stating that his area of Khata No. 47 falls in the last and at the end of main watercourse and that the area of Khata No. 57 of respondent No. 4 falls on the branch watercourse which should run first and the main watercourse has to run thereafter according to law, and that he was, therefore, entitled to the residue i. e. Jhara and that his wari may be placed after the wari of Khata No. 57 and the branch watercourse should run first and the main watercourse may run thereafter.

The demand of the petitioner was opposed by respondent No. 4 and ultimately rejected by Deputy Collector, respondent No. 1. The appeal and the revision against the same were also rejected by respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively and hence this writ petition has been filed.

In the written statement filed by respondent No. 4 it is contended that the petitioner has concealed the material fact that the matter in dispute has already been decided between the parties. It is also contended that Khata No. 47 figures in the name of Badho Bai and not in the name of the petitioner and for this he has relied on annexure P/4. Annexure P/4 is the copy of the sketch regarding the warabandi. It is also contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief that he wants because all the revenue Courts have held that the field of the respondent is a lengthy one and that of the petitioner is a shorter one and that is why the wari of the respondent has been allocated later on i.e. after the wari of the petitioner.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

The learned counsel for the respondents has cited the case of Kartar Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer and Ors. 1982 PLJ 486 in which learned Single Judge of this Court has held that dispute between the parties is settled by Divisional Canal Officer and Superintending Canal Officer, a second petition before the Divisional Canal Officer is not competent. However, different view has also been taken in the following cases :

(1) S. Jaggar Singh v. The Superintending Canal Officer Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana (1988) 94 P.L.R. 115.

(2) Sahi Ram v. Superintending Canal Officer and Ors. (1993) 104 P.L.R. 732.

In the case of Sahi Ram v. Superintending Canal Officer (supra) it is held by a Division Bench of this Court, that order altering use or distribution of water and alteration changing long prevalent system, there is no violation of provisions of statute. In the case of S. Jaggar Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer (supra) it has been held that fixing of warabandi is an ad hoc arrangement and can be altered by the competent authority on application of aggrieved person. Similar views were also taken in the case of Gulzar Singh v. Sadhu Singh (1973) 75 P.L.R. 450. In the present case the contention of the petitioner is that his khata number falls in the last and at the end of main watercourse whereas that of the respondent is on the branch watercourse. This point has missed consideration of the various authorities in dealing with the question.

Therefore, we find it proper to set aside the impugned orders annexures P/1, P/2 and P/3 passed by respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively and remand the case to the Deputy Collector, for fresh decision on merits "after considering the arguments addressed by the parties.

In the result, the petition is allowed in the manner indicated above.