Sohan Singh vs Superintending Canal Officer, Ludhiana

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana dated 26.8.1981 and confirming the orders of the Deputy Collector, Ferozepur dated 1.8.1980 and the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot dated 27.5.1981.

The petitioner is the owner of the land in Khata No. 5. He filed an application under Section 68 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 for fixing his wari (turn for water) after the wari of Harnek Singh, the 2nd respondent whose land is situated in Khata No. 7/3. The 2nd respondent objected to change of the wari on the ground that a Khal passes through his own field and the petitioner cannot be permitted to use the Khal which passes through his field.

The Deputy Collector, Ferozepur, by his order dated 1.8.1980 allowed the application filed by the petitioner and permitted the warabandi. The 2nd respondent filed an appeal to the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot, who confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector with certain modifications. Thereafter the 2nd respondent filed another appeal to the Superintending Canal Officer,. who by the impugned order dated 26.8.1981 quashed the orders of the Deputy Collector and the Divisional Canal Officer and restored the position of the warabandi as it existed before the decision of the Deputy Collector dated 1.8.1980.

Aggrieved by the said order of the Superintending Canal Officer, Ludhiana, the petitioner filed this writ petition to quash the same.

There is no dispute that the watercourse runs through the field shown in Khata No. 7/3 belonging to the 2nd respondent Harnek Singh. There is also no dispute that field bearing Khata No. 7/3 is the property of Harnek Singh. The Superintending Canal Officer found that if the petitioner is allowed to use the Khal which passes through the field of Harnek Singh and fixed wari of Khata No. 5, it bisects the field of 2nd respondent. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order of the Superintending Canal Officer. New watercourse cannot be carved out in such a manner dividing the field of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner filed an application under Section 68 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'') which empowers the Deputy Collector to pass an order as to the use and distribution of water from a watercourse amongst persons in any estate or a group of estates or in any holding or group of holdings in such estate or estates.

There is no dispute that while exercising the powers under Section 68 of the Act, the authorities are discharging the quasijudicial functions. Under Section 68 of the Act, as already observed, the Deputy Collector is empowered to pass an order as to the use and distribution of water from a watercourse, but it does not empower the Deputy Collector to carve out or sanction a new watercourse. It is not the case of the petitioner that no warabandi has been fixed to cultivate his land. He wants to change the watercourse, which according to the Superintending Canal Officer, divides the land of the 2nd respondent. I am, therefore, of the view that such a course is not permissible under Section 68 of the Act. I am also of the opinion that the Superintending Canal Officer has given valid reasons for allowing the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent. I do not find any error in the impugned order of the Superintending Canal Officer. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

The result is, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.