Ram Sarup vs Divisional Canal Officer

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

The petitioners who are residents of village Patti Afgan have jointly filed this writ petition for quashing order of Chief Canal Officer dated 16.11.1987 (Annexure P.3 to the writ petition), vide which he had set aside the orders of the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer and had allowed the outlet to be fixed at RD 13000L Kaithal subminor.

Brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos. 4 to 7 moved an application before Divisional Canal Officer, Kaithal Division, Irrigation Branch for shifting of the outlet from RD 12400L to RD 13000L Kaithal sub minor. It partly accepted the petitioner''s claim and observed that the existing outlet at RD 12400L Kaithal subminor is fixed at a site on higher level and is in the beginning of the chak. The intensity of irrigation to 458/438 acres area of the chak, is 87% against the authorised intensity of 62%. It was further observed that the irrigation is being done properly from the existing site of outlet at RD 12400L Kaithal subminor and he reached to the conclusion that the demand of the applicantsrespondents for shifting of head of outlet from RD 12400L from Kaithal Sub Minor to RD 13000L is to avoid the curves in the main watercourse near the head of outlet. It was further observed that it will create many problems to maintain the watercourse for irrigation in the head reach area if the existing outlet is shifted as per demand of the applicants. In the end it was observed that the difficulty for maintaining the water course in the head reach area if any will be removed after lining of water courses by Haryana State Minor Irrigation Authorities and rejected the demand made by the private respondentsapplicants. Thereafter, the said respondents filed appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Canal Circle. The site was inspected by the Superintending Canal Officer, who noticed some curves and in order to remove this difficulty the site of outlet was slightly changed to RD 12520L Kaithal subminor on the Killa line of 22/615, as shown on the Khaka Plan. Against the order of the Superintending Canal Officer, the private respondents filed appeal before the Chief Canal Officer who vide order dated 16.11.1987 accepted the appeal and set aside the orders of the Divisional, Canal Officer and that of Superintending Canal Officer.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer had rejected the petitioners'' (respondents herein) claim about shifting of outlet to RD 12520L Kaithal SubMinor after inspection of the site and there was no material whatsoever before the Chief Canal Officer to allow the respondents'' claim for shifting outlet to RD 13000L Kaithal SubMinor.

After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book I am of the view that the Chief Canal Officerrespondent No. 3 has not given any plausible reasons for setting aside the orders of the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer. No appeal is competent before Chief Canal Officer. He has only revisional jurisdiction under the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act. It is settled principle of law that while exercising revisional power the authorities can interfere if there has occurred any impropriety or illegality in the orders appealed against. The Chief Canal Officer has not recorded any such impropriety or illegality in the orders of Divisional Canal Officer/Superintending Canal Officer, who had rejected the respondents'' claim after hearing the parties and considering all aspects of the case as also the inspection of the site. The Divisional Canal Officer has categorically observed in his order that the difficulty for maintaining the water course in the head reach area if any will be removed after lining of water course by the authorities and the Superintending Canal Officer had made a slight change in the outlet after inspecting the site. As such there was no occasion for the Chief Canal Officer to have reversed the orders of the Divisional Canal Officer/Superintending Canal Officer who had the opportunity to inspect the site before passing the orders.

In view of the above said discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Chief Canal Officer dated 16.11.1987 (Annexure P.3) is quashed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.