Pal Singh vs Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the Superintending Canal Officer dated 9.12.1994.

The respondents 3 to 8 made an application before the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot, for the transfer of their land from outlet No. 9090/R Chahal Minor to outlet No. 7027/Tail F Shamni Pakka Sub Minor in village Kaler.

According to respondents 3 to 8 they are not able to cultivate their lands from outlet No. 9090/R Chahal Minor due to its non-existing and, therefore, they wanted for the change/transfer of their land from outlet No. 9090/R Chahal Minor to outlet No, 70270 Tail F Shamni Pakka Sub Minor. Their application was allowed by the Divisional Canal Officer by his order dated 19.4.1993.

The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Superintending Canal Officer, who allowed the appeal by his order dated 9.12.1994. Against the said order, respondent 3 to 8 filed a writ petition bearing No. 14931 of 1993. The said writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 22.8.1994 and the matter was remanded to the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana for a decision afresh after granting an opportunity for hearing to the parties. The impugned order was passed by the Superintending Canal Officer after remand.

According to the respondents 3 to 8 they are not getting sufficient water for irrigation purposes from outlet No. 9090/R Chahal Minor. Thereafter they wanted to transfer their lands to outlet No. 7027/ Tail Shammi Pakka Sub Minor. According to the petitioners, if the lands of respondents No. 3 to 8 are brought under outlet No. 7027there will be diminishing of water supply for irrigation of their fields. According to them, respondents No. 3 to 8 were irrigating their lands from outlet No. 9090/R Chahal Minor and there was sufficient water for irrigating their fields through the said outlet.

The Superintending Canal Officer in his earlier order dated 20.8. 1993 called for a report from Ziledar Mudki and directed him to produce statistics of irrigation for the last 10 years pertaining to 118 C.CA. area of village Kaler. After perusal of the said statistics the Superintending Canal Officer held in his order dated 20.8.1993 that the respondents were getting irrigation from the old outlet in the satisfactory manner.

In the writ petition filed by respondents No. 3 to 8 bearing No. 14931 of 1993 observed that the Superintending Canal Officer decided the case on the basis of the record seen by him in the absence of the parties after the judgment was reserved and it is in violation of the principles of natural justice and as an opportunity should have been given to the petitioners therein (respondents No. 3 to 8 in this writ petition) as well as to respondents (now petitioners in this writ petition) to peruse the record on the basis of which judgment has been passed. On that basis the order of the Superintending Canal Officer was set aside and the matter was remanded to him for decision afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

In the impugned order after remand Superintending Canal-Officer has not referred to any statistics which have been called for by his predecessor in office. He only relied upon the statistics after 1992. They are not relevant for the purpose of the decision whether the respondents 3 to 8 were getting satisfactory supply of water for irrigation of their fields prior to making of their application in the year 1990. It is absolutely necessary for respondents No. 3 to 8 to satisfy the authorities that they have not been getting sufficient water supply to irrigate their fields and therefore, there is no justification for their seeking change or transfer of their land from outlet No. 9090/R Chahal Minor. To decide this, it is necessary to see the statistics prior to 1990. Though his predecessor-in-office, called for the statistics of 10 years prior to 1990. Superintending Canal Officer has not adverted to those statistics. The purpose of remanding the matter by this Court in CWP No. 14931 of 1993 was to give, an opportunity to both sides to examine the statistics prior to 1990 which have been produced by Ziledar Mudki and after affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides was to be decided afresh. Thus it appears that the directions given by this Court have not been followed by the Superintending Canal Officer while passing the impugned order. I am, therefore, of the opinion that this is a fit case where, the matter requires to be remanded to the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana for a fresh disposal of the matter.

In the light of the observations made above, the writ petition is, accordingly allowed and the matter is remanded to the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana for fresh disposal after giving an opportunity to both sides to adduce such evidence as they deem fit to prove their respective contentions and after giving an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence in regard to the statistics which have been produced by Ziledar Mudki for the past 10 years prior to 1990 and in the light of the above observations. There will be no order as to costs.