- (1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.06.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 2-Chief Canal Officer, BWS, Haryana whereby appeal preferred by respondent No. 5-Balwan Singh has been accepted and his area 22.04/22.04 has been excluded from the chak of outlet RD 18350-R New Chuli Minor and included in the chak of outlet RD-22250-Tail Old Chuli Minor. The brief facts of the case are to the effect that respondent No. 5-Balwan Singh son of Ram Lal moved application for transfer of 22.04/22.04 acres area from the chak of outlet RD-18350-R New Chuli Minor to the Chak of outlet RD-22250 Tail Old Chuli Minor on the ground that they will get better irrigation through the proposed source. The case was got investigated through Ziledar and Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Bhattu. After investigation and inspection, Ziledar and Sub Divisional Canal Officer recommended the case for the transfer of 22.04/22.04 acres area and thereafter scheme under Section 17 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (in short, 'the Canal Act') was submitted. The scheme was published by the Divisional Canal Officer under Rule 7 and Section 18(1) of the Canal Act for inviting objections to the proposed transfer of the area. In response to the publication, shareholders appeared before the Divisional Canal Officer. They were explained about the scheme. It was the case set up by Balwan Singh that their area is not getting proper irrigation through the existing source as there is a depression. Balwan Singh agreed to bear the expenses for the adjustment of both the outlets and also agreed that he would arrange the watercourse himself from the proposed source. No one opposed the scheme. The Divisional Canal Officer referred the case for approval to the higher authorities as discharge from outlet RD-183 50-R New Chuli Minor was less than 0.75 Cs. Vide letter dated 30.03.2010, Chief Canal Officer, BWS, Haryana accorded approval. Thereafter, the Superintending Canal Officer, BWS, Circle-II, Hisar vide letter dated 21.04.2010, accorded permission to decide the case after 30 days. Thereafter, the Divisional Canal Officer approved the transfer, subject to confirmation by the Superintending Engineer. The Superintending Engineer, vide order dated 18.03.2011, confirmed the transfer. Against that, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Canal Officer, who vide order dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure P-3) remanded the matter to the Superintending Canal Officer for re-consideration. The Superintending Canal officer set aside the order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer vide order dated 22.01.2013 (Annexure P-4). Against that, respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal before the Chief Canal Officer who set aside the order dated 22.01.2013 (Annexure P-4), vide impugned order dated 10.06.2013 (Annexure P-5). Hence, this revision petition.
(2.) In pursuance of notice, the respondents put in appearance. Respondents No. 2 to 4 filed their separate written statement and respondents No. 5 and 6 filed their separate written statement. Sh. Ranjit Singh, Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Bhattu also filed his additional affidavit.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;