Singhu and another vs State of Haryana and others

M. M. Punchhi, J. (Oral)

Singhu and another, the petitioners, entered upon litigation with Chetan and Baru, respondents Nos. 5 and 6, on the question of sanctioning of a watercourse. The matter was agitated in the hierarchy of officers under the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974. Finally when the matter was before the Chief Canal Officer, some settlement seems to have been arrived at whereby Chetan and Baru agreed to have water at a particular point described as `W'' at the same level as that of point `A'' wherefrom Chetan was already getting irrigation. Now in order to have the level as that of point `A'' at point `W'', the Chief Canal Officer thought that watercourse `ABXW'', will have to be lined after properly designing the watercourse. He, therefore, ordered that the work of lining of the watercourse shall have to be carried out as deposit work and the cost shall be borne by the beneficiaries. This order is Annexure P. 5 and bears the date 24.4.1978. Chetan and Baru along with three others Dalla, Narsingh and Inder filed an application to the Chief Canal Officer for rehearing the matter praying that the watercourse be not lined. The Chief Canal Officer then vide order, Annexure P. 6, held that since watercourse `ABX'' was a sanctioned watercourse, there could be no objection to the lining of that watercourse, but so far as the branch watercourse `XWY'' was concerned, that was meant to provide irrigation to the holding of Chetan and since it had to be constructed on the northern side of Killa No. 40/6/1, compensation shall be paid to the owner of the land. This order is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution primarily on the ground that the Chief Canal Officer had no power to review this decision.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has stressed that under Rule 119 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Rules 1976, a party, who had not been heard, had the right to move the Chief Canal Officer within a period of thirty days from the date of order but he says that in the present case, the real applications were Chetan and Baru and three others had been joined who had no interest in the watercourse. He further says that Inder, Dalla and Narsingh had been ordered to pay the share of cost of lining of watercourse `ABX'' and as such the impugned order has tended to review the earlier order of the Chief Canal Officer, a power which he did not have.

There is an obvious fallacy in the argument. It is to be borne in mind that the earlier order, Annexure P. 5, was between the petitioners and Chetan and Baru respondents. These respondents had to be provided water at point `W'' on a particular level as agreed to between the parties. To facilitate that the lining of the watercourse was ordered to be done and the cost had to be borne by the beneficiaries. The applicants seeking rehearing were Dalla and two others besides Baru and Chetan. On rehearing the matter, the Chief Canal Officer has clarified the position by giving different directions visavis the sanctioned watercourse and different visavis the branch watercourse. I fail to see how there has been any review on merits in the case; rather it is a case of no review at all. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out even a semblance of review in the instant case.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition which fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.