15.01.2025 SATYABAL BALA v. STATE OF H OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN T AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH CWP-26326-2024 (O&M) M) 25 Date of decision :15.01.2025 SATYABAL BALA …Petitioner Versus STATE OF H OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARSH BUNGER Present :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate dvocate Mr. Neeraj Sansaniwal, Advocat and Mr. Gursimar Singh, Advoca for the petitioners. dvocate Ms. Upasana Dhawan, A.A.G., H .G., Haryana. HARSH BUN H BUNGER, J. [ORAL] 2025 CM-371-2025 This n is an application for placing on for record the the khasra girdaw irdawari dated 03.01.2025 as Annex dis Annexure P-9; copies of Jamabandis dated 11.12.2 1.12.2024 as Annexure P-10 and 29.10 d 29.10.2024 as Annexure P-11. For the reasons mentioned in e is ed in the application, the same is allowed and A and Annexures P-9 to P-11 are take l just e taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Civil Misc. Applications are acco
Decision
re accordingly disposed of. CWP-26326 326-2024 Petitioner has filed the present ticles resent writ petition under Articles GURPREET KAUR 2025.01.17 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 226/227 of th 7 of the Constitution of India, inter ali rit in r alia, seeking issuance of a writ in Page 1 of 5 5 the nature of certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure P-6); whereby an application submitted by the petitioner for transfer of his 2.91 acres of area from Outlet RD 680-L Koth Kalan Distributory to Outlet at RD 12000-TF TBS Feeder, was dismissed. A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 28.03.2023 (Annexure P-7) and also the order dated 15.12.2023 (Annexure P-8); whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioner were also dismissed. 2. Briefly, the petitioner claims to be the owner of agricultural land measuring 23 Kanal – 6 Marla situate at Village Uchana Khurd, Tehsil Uchana, Haryana. It appears that the petitioner submitted an application, seeking transfer of his afore-said area from Outlet RD 680-L Koth Kalan Distributory to Outlet at RD 12000-TF TBS Feeder, on the plea that her area was not getting proper irrigation and she was facing difficulty in cultivating her land. 2.1 Upon receipt of the afore-said application from the petitioner, the matter was got investigated from the Field Staff and the Ziledar recommended the transfer of the area. 2.2 The Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana and the Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar jointly heard the claim of the petitioner and rejected the same vide order dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure P-6) by observing as under :- “Decision :- That the area in question has been proposed to be transferred from the jurisdiction of Hisar W/S Division, Hissar to the jurisdiction Narwana W/S Division, Narwana and therefore the present scheme has been heard jointly by both the Divisional Canal Officers. GURPREET KAUR 2025.01.17 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 2 of 5 We have heard the arguments of all the irrigators who came present in the court. Khaka plan and other relevant record have been perused. It has been observed that there is no link of water course to the area of the applicant in the chak of proposed outlet and thus there will be no use for transfer the area of the applicant from the chak of existing outlet at RD 680-L Koth Kalan Disty to outlet at RD 12000-TF TBS Feeder. Hence the scheme as published is hereby rejected under section 18(2) of Haryana Canal and Drainage Act of 1974. The decision be conveyed to all concerned accordingly.” 2.3 An appeal filed by the petitioner before a bench of Superintending Canal Officer, Bhairaa Water Services, Circle Kaithal, was also dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure P-7), by holding as under :- “That the tail at RD 12000 TBS Feeder hardly runs with its approved discharge and is not capable to accommodate any new area of another channel. The discharge of outlet at RD 12000-Tail TBS Feeder cannot be increased and in case the area of the appellant is included in the chak of outlet at RD 12000-Tail TBS Feeder, the wari time of the shareholders of the Tail outlet would be reduced and the same will cause adverse effect on the irrigation to the area of the shareholders of the outlet. Keeping in view the facts as explained above we find no merit in the present appeal case. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed and the joint decision dated 14.09.2022 passed by the Divisional Canal Officers, Narwana W.S. Division, Narwana and Hisar W.S. Division Hisar is hereby upheld.” 2.4 Further, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Chief Canal Officer, Haryana, was also dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2023 (Annexure P-8). GURPREET KAUR 2025.01.17 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 3 of 5 2.5 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court for the relief/s, as noticed here-in-above. 3. 4. Heard. Perusal of orders dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure P-6) and 28.02.2023 (Annexure P-7) would indicate that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the following grounds :- (i) that there was no link of water course to the area of the petitioner in the Chak of the proposed outlet; (ii) the tail at RD-12000 TBS Feeder hardly runs with its approved discharge and is not capable to accommodate any new area of another channel; (iii) that discharge of outlet at RD-12000-Tail TBS Feeder cannot be increased; (iv) in case, the area of the petitioner is included in the chak of outlet at RD-12000-Tail TBS Feeder, the wari time of the share holders of the tail outlet would be reduced and the same will cause adverse effect on the irrigation to the area of the shareholders of the outlet. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has been unable to dislodge the observations/findings returned by the Canal Authorities, as indicated above. 6. It is well settled that the Canal Authorities are the best judges for the situation at the spot. In my considered view, if on a consideration of the matter it has been found that the transfer of area from one outlet to the other is not feasible or it would have adverse effect on irrigation of area of the shareholders of the outlet where the area is sought to be transferred, then this Court cannot interfere in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution unless it is shown that the order is patently illegal and arbitrary. Nothing of the sort has been pointed out in this case. GURPREET KAUR 2025.01.17 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 4 of 5 7. In view of the above discussion, there is no error in the impugned order(s) passed by the Canal authorities under the Act, which may call for an interference by this Court in this petition and hence the same is hereby dismissed. 8. All pending applications (if any) shall also stand closed. January 15, 2025 gurpreet (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE Whether speaking/reason0ed: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2025.01.17 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 5 of 5