K.Kannan, J. - (1.) The petitioners claimed that they are shareholders in outlet RD 53947/R, Bhutana Branch of Village Anchra Khurd. They are aggrieved about a change of watercourse to allow for additional 12 acres of land to be irrigated that belonged to private respondents 5 to 8 which is presently irrigated from outlet 58484/RD. Initially when a representation had been made at the instance of private respondents for transfer of 12/12 acres of area from outlet RD58484/R to outlet RD 53947/R, it appears that SDO, Bhutana Sub Division submitted a draft scheme duly recommending such a transfer. The case had been taken up by the Canal Officer, Rohtak, who purported to carry out an enquiry and had observed that he had examined two persons, Ranbir and Chanda being the shareholders of outlet RD-58484/R, who were alleged to have given no objection for such a transfer. The Canal Officer, however, held that he was not competent to approve such a change and rejected the plea by his order dated 13.03.1987. The respondents had again preferred an appeal to the Superintending Canal Officer, Western Jamuna Canal, West Circle, Rohtak, but he also held that he was not competent to pass orders and rejected the appeal. In a further appeal filed to the Chief Canal Officer (YC), the appeal was allowed on the ground that there was no objection from anybody and hence, he was making the order of approval.
(2.) The petitioners contend that there had been no valid notice to all the shareholders. The petitioners would rely on the preparation of a draft scheme to be made in terms of Section 17(b) for allotment of any new areas to a watercourse or an outlet and Rule 7 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Rules of 1976 says that the scheme prepared under Section 17 would be published for inviting objections and suggestions by affixing a copy thereof in a conspicuous part in the village or the village concerned, displaying the sketch plan, the name of village, the name of distributory etc. The Lambardar concerned shall be informed about the scheme and he should announce the place where the details of the scheme could be inspected by beat of drum. When the petitioners were complaining that the scheme had been purported to be modified without any form of notice to persons effected by the scheme, one would expect that the Government to join issues and produce all the relevant materials to show that the official acts had been duly complied with. I find that the State has not even filed the reply. Only respondents 5 to 8, who have taken the benefit that modified scheme have filed reply and have produced before the Court a copy of the notice alleged to have been issued under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1974. The District Canal Officer has noted on 16.02.1987 that the same was being published with a view to elicit objections and that all detailed discussions of the scheme and hearing would be held on 13.03.1987. The document of notice produced by the respondents along with the reply also showed that the publication and munadi had been directed to be made in the village through Chowkidar. The Lambardar has made an endorsement on 20.02.1987 on the notice that publication had been effected on 20.02.1987 and that all persons present had been informed by the patwari in his presence and that the rightholders had been informed through the Chowkidar. The patwari had sent back notices after serving the notices in the manner required under Rule 9.
(3.) The petitioners complain of statutory non-compliance of notices. The Rules do not require personal service of notices. The manner in publication of the scheme and the manner of publication of notice under Rules 7 and 11 require only a publication by beat of drum and the acknowledgment of Lambardar and his statement of having announced and given publicity of the same on the file of the scheme. The document produced before the Court surely secures the proof of such publication.;