Phool Singh vs Chief Canal Officer

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order Annexure P-3 of the Chief Canal Officer, Haryana, dated September 10, 1980. The petitioner who is having his land in village Uchana Kalan, applied to the Canal Officer for giving him the water-course through the land of respondent No. 4. According to him he was irrigating his land through the land of respondent No. 5 Nihala son of Mangal which is marked as ''CDE'' passing through the land of respondent No. 5. As respondent No. 5 objected to his taking water, the petitioner wanted to have a water-course through the land of respondent No. 4. The Divisional Canal Officer by his order dated October 24, 1979, approved the proposal for water-course in the land of respondent No. 4 at the cost of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Canal Circle, Kaithal, u/s 20(1) of Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, who confirmed the orders of the Divisional Canal Officer. On further appeal to the Chief Canal Officer, the orders of the Divisional Canal Officer as confirmed by the Superintending Canal Officer were set aside and the Chief Canal Officer directed that the petitioner should continue to irrigate his land through the running water-course ''CDE'' through the field of respondent No. 5. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the above writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Nihala son of Mangal, respondent No. 5 objected to giving water through ''CDE'' which passes through his field to irrigate the land of the petitioner and further Nihala wanted the petitioner to pay compensation for giving water and that he was not prepared to pay compensation. The learned counsel further contended that from ''C'' to ''B'' there is a watercourse and if the water-course is extended upto ''A'' which is only a small piece of land, the water can be given to his lands which are situated by the side of the land of respondent No. 4 and it is easy for him to irrigate the lands. The learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has contended that if a water-course ''BA'' is permitted, it will bifurcate his land and further there is a passage running across the land of the petitioner and unless the water-course is taken out of the rasta, it would not reach the lands of the petitioner as can be seen in the site plan which is attached to the writ petition as Annexure P-4. Therefore, the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has contended that carving of a water-course from ''B'' to ''A'' causes hardship to respondent No. 4 as if divides his land.

There is no dispute that the petitioner has been taking water to irrigate his land from the ''CDE'' water-course as can be seen from the site plan which is Annexure P-4. It is also clear from the plan that after the lands of respondent No. 4 there is a rasta at ''A'' and below that point ''A'' land of the petitioner is situated. Therefore, in order to take water from the lands of respondent No. 4, a new watercourse has to be carved out from ''B'' to ''A'' whereas admittedly the petitioner has been taking water since long time from the water-course ''CDE'' (Annexure P-4). The writ petition was filed in 1981. The application was filed in 1979. It is on record that the petitioner has been cultivating his land through ''CDE'' for more than fifteen years prior to the filing of the petition. Simply because respondent No. 5 tried to raise an objection for irrigating the land through the water-course ''CDE'' the petitioner cannot as a matter of right have a new water-course to irrigate his land through the fields of respondent No. 4. If a new water-course as shown ''BA'' is carved out it would bifurcate or divide the land of respondent No. 4. Therefore, rights of respondent No. 4 will be affected.

In this view of the matter, Chief Canal Officer directed that the petitioner can successfully irrigate his lands through the existing water-course ''CDE''. In fact the petitioner has also acquired a right to irrigate his land through the water course ''CDE''. The petitioner cannot as a matter of right have another water-course across the lands of respondent No. 4. I am, therefore, of the opinion that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed without costs.