IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition 545 of 2007 Date of decision: 17.11.2009 Balwant Singh and ors …Petitioners Versus The Divisional Canal Officer and ors …Respondents Present: Mr Ashok Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr HS Gill, DAG Punjab. Mr JS Thind, Advocate for respondents-5 to 31. S.S. SARON, J. The petitioners, by way of the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seek quashing of the order dated 13.11.2006 (P3) passed by the Chief Canal Officer, Panchkula (respondent- 4). The dispute between the petitioners and private respondents is with regard to shifting of Outlet No.RD 78300-R Gigorani Disty to Outlet No.RD 79500-R Gigorani Disty. The Divisional Canal Officer, Neharana Water Services Division, Sirsa (respondent-1) vide order dated 8.12.2004 (P1) allowed Outlet at RD 78300-R (with siphon) to be fixed at point between Killa Nos.9 to 12 of Square 65 for better irrigation of the entire ‘Chak’. Outlet RD 78300-R Gigorani Disty was sanctioned for area of 310/303 acres by taking 310/303 acres area from outlet RD 16000-R Rampura Minor of village Jasania. The petitioners, aggrieved against the 1 CWP 545 of 2007 order dated 8.12.2004 (P1) filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, who vide order dated 21.9.2005 (P2) accepted the same. It was observed that the levels of the area of proposed site i.e. RD 79500-R (siphon) Gigorani Disty were higher than the levels of the area of the existing Outlet – RD 78300-R (siphon) Gigorani Disty. Besides, most of the share holders of ‘Chak’ of outlet RD 78300-R (siphon) Gigorani Disty were not receiving proper irrigation from the existing source. On the other hand, ‘pucca’ water course was crossing at the proposed site at RD 79500/R (siphon) Gigorani Disty. Therefore, it was observed that the land owners can get better irrigation from the proposed source and there will be no loss to the land owners whose area falls near the head of the existing source because the water course was already existing in running condition on both the sides of the Gigorani Disty. Accordingly, the shifting of the head of existing outlet – RD 78300/R (siphon) Gigorani Disty to point at RD 79500/R (with siphon) Gigorani Disty was approved and the decision dated 8.12.2004 (P1) of the Divisional Canal Officer was set aside. The private respondents, aggrieved against the order of the Superintending Canal Officer, filed an appeal before the Chief Canal Officer, who vide order dated 13.11.2006 (P3) allowed the appeal. After noticing the facts, the decision recorded by the Chief Canal Officer, Panchkula, is as follows:- “The written arguments of the appellants have been received and considered in details. The perusal of Khaka Plan indicates that higher FSLK and network of water course is available at RD 78300-R Gigorani Disty. The state of the ‘Chak’ is nominal. There is no justification for shifting of the outlet head.” 2 CWP 545 of 2007 After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, the above order dated 13.11.2006 (P3) passed by the Chief Canal Officer is lacking in material particulars and bereft of specific reasons. The Divisional Canal Officer has recorded detailed reasons justifying shifting of the outlet RD 78300-R to point at RD 79500-R. However, the same has been set aside by a short order which is bereft of specific reasons. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner has no objection if the petitioners are allowed to draw their turn of water for irrigation from RD 79500-R without affecting the rights of the private respondents from continuing to draw their turn of water for irrigation from RD 78300-R. Learned counsel for the private respondents also accepts this suggestion. However, this aspect is to be considered by the Irrigation Authorities and this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot substitute its decision for that reached at by the authorities under the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974. Therefore, it would be just and expedient that the matter is remanded to the Chief Canal Officer, Panchkula for consideration of the matter with regard to the suggestion as put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners and accepted by the learned counsel for the private respondents. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 13.11.2006 (P3) passed by the Chief Canal Officer, Panchkula is set aside and quashed and the matter is remanded to the Chief Canal Officer, Panchkula for fresh consideration of the appeal and even the proposal as made by the learned counsel for the petitioners which are acceptable to the learned counsel for the private respondents. 3 CWP 545 of 2007 The parties shall appear before the Chief Canal Officer, Panchkula on 14.1.2010. Till the matter is finally decided by the Chief Canal Officer, Panchkula, status quo with regard to the irrigation as it exists today, shall continue. 17.11.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 4