Jasbir Singh, J.@mdashPetitioner Balbir Singh has filed the present writ petition against the orders dated 31.12.1998, 18.8.1999 and 15.6.2000
(Annexure P-2, P-5 and P-7) respectively. Vide above mentioned orders, the canal authorities have made certain changes in turn of water
(warabandi of the shareholders in RD 1000-L Neoli Minor of villages Neoli Kalan and Bir Hisar.
2. It has been submitted by the petitioner that under the grab of fixing of turn of water, the canal authorities have virtually carved out a new water
course, which they are not competent to do so under the provisions of Section 55 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974. It has also been
stated that the petitioner has been condemned unheard and the appeal and revision filed by him were dismissed without noticing his contentions and
in this manner, grave injustice has been done to him..
3. Notice of the writ petition was issued. In response thereto, written statement has been filed by respondent No. 4 controverting all the allegations
levelled by the petitioner. It has further been submitted that actually the writ petition has been filed at the instance of one Shri Ram Kumar who is
getting extra water for 2 hours and 30 minutes in excess of his entitlement. It has been stated that the petitioner is virtually espousing the cause of
said Shri Ram Kumar.
4. Counsel for the parties have been heard. Shri Shailendra Jain, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the Divisional Canal
Officer while deciding the application of the shareholders for rationalisation of the turn of water, has carved out a new water outlet which earlier
was not in existence and, as such, the order Annexure P-2 and subsequent orders passed deserve to be quashed. This argument of the counsel for
the petitioner does not seem to be correct. As is apparent from the site plan Annexure R-4/1, Kacha water course BCDDI has been shown in
existence at the spot. A specific note has been given by the canal Patwari in the said site plan Annexure R-4/1 to state that ''Kacha and Pucca''
water courses shown in the map are running at the spot. The said site plan is available on the records of the canal authorities in the present case.
Apart from that, this contention has been dealt with and rejected by the Superintending Canal Officer by passing the order Annexure R-7. The
relevant paragraph of the order dated 15.6.2000 reads as under:-
The contention of the petitioner Balbir that the nakka of the respondent Indira should not be fixed on the alignment BCDD and that it should be
fixed in the next branch watercourse ""EF"" is not based on the genuine grounds. Records of Warabandi shows that the alignment BCDD is an old
running one. Moreover, it is an suitable watercourse for the irrigation of the respondent. So, it is held that the lower courts through the concurred
decision have fixed the nakha of the respondent on the watercourse BCDD.
5. Apart from the above mentioned facts, the counsel for the petitioner has even failed to convince this Court at the time of arguments that any new
water course has been actually carved out by the canal authorities while fixing the turn of water of the shareholders. Shri Shailendra Jain has further
contended that the proper hearing was not given to the petitioner at the time when the turn of the water (Warabandi) was fixed in the present case.
This contention also does not seem to be correct as is apparent from the documents on record. The case for fixing of turn was taken up at the
instance of the shareholders of the water outlet No. RD 1000-L Neoli Minor. The case was investigated by the lower staff. A draft Warabandi
alongwith Khakha plan was prepared. Notice was issued to all the shareholders and on their appearance, the proposed Warabandi was explained
to the shareholders and after hearing the objections, the same, was approved. As such, it is apparent that there is sufficient compliance of the
provisions of Section 55 of the Act. Furthermore, as is apparent from the orders Annexures P-2, P-5 and P-7 that the turn of water has been fixed
for better irrigation. This court is not supposed to sit as a court of appeal over the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. In view of the
reasoning stated above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- N.K. Sodhi, J.
