Civil Writ Petition No.3648 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3648 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 4, 2011 Rameshwar ...... Petitioner Versus The Deputy Collector and others ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 8.4.2008, passed by the Deputy Collector Water Services Division, Fatehabad, order dated 30.6.2008, passed by Division Canal Officer- respondent No.2 as well as order dated 1.1.2010 passed by Superintending Canal Officer-respondent No.3. Civil Writ Petition No.3648 of 2010 2 Brief facts of the present case are that earlier petitioner was having the turn of watercourse after the turn of Richhpal-respondnet No.4 as per decision of Deputy Collector dated 19.9.1995 and 5.10.1995 (Annxure P-2), dated 17.4.1997 and 23.4.1997 (Annexure P-3), dated 21.5.2004 and 25.5.2004 (Annexure P-4). Respondent No.4 made an application before the Deputy Collector under Section 55 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 requesting the Deputy Collector to give the irrigation water to the petitioner first and turn of respondent No.4 should be after the turn of the petitioner. Deputy Collector-respondent No.1 as well as respondents No.2 and 3 agreed with the contentions raised by respondent No.4 and have ordered that respondent No.4 shall get irrigation water after the turn of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved from the orders passed by respondents No.1,2 and 3 petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner has annexed certified copy of the site plan (Annexure P-1) alleging that watercourse comes up to point ‘A’ and at point ‘A’ agricultural field of Richhpal Singh, thereafter watercourse takes right turn and goes up to point ‘Y’ in the field of the petitioner, therefore, field of the petitioner comes after the field of Richhpal, therefore, as per Rule 8 Appendix E of the Haryana Irrigation Manual petitioner is entitled for the Jhara after the turn of Richhpal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that although from point ‘A’ respondent No.4 has constructed his own watercourse but that is not controlled and regulated by Irrigation Authorities, therefore, respondent No.4 cannot take any advantage over the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Kamlesh vs. Deputy Civil Writ Petition No.3648 of 2010 3 Collector, Sirsa and others reported in 2006 (1) PLJ 593 and has argued that since the petitioner holding is at the fag end of the watercourse, therefore, petitioner is entitled to the Jhara as per Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974. He has further argued that as, for the last so many years, the petitioner was getting Jhara after the turn of respondent No.4, therefore, disturbance therein was uncalled for and decision taken at the earlier point of time by the Deputy Collector to give the irrigation water to the petitioner after the turn of respondent No.4 would act as resjudicata, therefore, respondents were not within their jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders giving last turn to respondent No.4. Mr. Deepak Girotra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana as well as Mr. Shalender Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 have argued that it is correct that holding at the fag end shall be entitled to the Jhara as per the Rule. However, since holding of respondent No.4 after partition of land is after the holding of the petitioner, therefore, authorities were well within their jurisdiction in granting such Jhara to respondent No.4. I have carefully perused the site plans submitted by the petitioner as well as by respondent No.4. From the certified copy of the site plan, filed by the petitioner, as well as certified copy of the site plan, filed by respondent No.4, it is apparent that holding of respondent No.4 starts at point ‘A’ and watercourse being maintained by the Canal Department takes right turn from point ‘A’, thereafter holding of the petitioner comes. Perusal of Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4 would show that holding of the petitioner is after the holding of respondent No.4. No illegality is pointed out by Assistant Advocate General, Haryana as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.4 in earlier decisions taken by the Deputy Collector right Civil Writ Petition No.3648 of 2010 4 from 1999 to 2004. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamlesh (supra) in paras No.8 and 9 has held as under :- “8. Still further, the holding of the petitioner, which has been depicted in brown colour of the site plan (Annexure P1) is situated at the fag end of the main watercourse, where the area shown in light blue colour which belongs to respondent No.4 is not even situated on the branch watercourse BC. As per the warabandi rules, the holding at the fag end of the main watercourse is entitled to the Jhara. It seems that respondent No.3 without even slightly taking into consideration the ground realities has passed the order dated 9.3.2005 (Annexure P6) allowing the Jhara (residue) to be used by respondent No.4. Para 8 of Appendix ‘E’ of the Punjab Irrigation Manual (as applicable to the State of Haryana) is to the following effect :- “The order of turns should be definitely laid down in accordance with one of the following systems:- (a) Down the watercourse, i.e. in order of distance of off-take from the outlet. In this case the order proceeds down the main watercourse to the head of the first branch; then down the branch before continuing down the main watercourse. Similarly as regards sub-branches.” 9. A perusal of the above shows that the turn of water of the area on the main watercourse has to be fixed after the turn of the area on the branch watercourse. As the area of the petitioner is situated on the main watercourse and the holding of respondent No.4 is located on the branch watercourse, the turn of the petitioner has to be fixed after the turn of respondent No.4. Moreover, the matter stood Civil Writ Petition No.3648 of 2010 5 concluded as back as 16.7.1984 when the Divisional Canal Officer had held that the holding of Bhagirath, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, was situated on the main watercourse, and that of Ladhu Ram, father of respondent No.4, was located on the Branch Watercourse. The revision petition filled by Ladhu Ram was dismissed by the Superintending Canal Officer vide order dated 7.11.1984 (Annexure P9) holding that the area of Ladhu Ram was not even located on the Branch Watercourse, what to speak of Main Watercourse. The position depicted in the site plans Annexures P1 and P10 has not been disputed on behalf of the respondents.” As discussed above, holding of the petitioner is at the fag end after the holding of respondent No.4, which is apparent from the site plan, filed by both the parties, therefore, petitioner is entitled to the Jhara. Hence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Petition is allowed. Impugned orders are quashed. (Alok Singh) Judge July 4, 2011 Anand