SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE dispute in this petition is about allotment of warabandi of outlet RD 72880-L, Rohtak distributory of village Sanghi, District Rohtak, under section 55 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) THE petitioner moved an application under Section 55 of the Act before the Deputy Collector, Rohtak, for allotment of the warabandi. His prayer was that his 'wari' be fixed after the 'wari' of Ram Bhagat (respondent No. 4 herein). On the said application, report of the Ziledar was sought who in his report recommended for the change of 'Wari' as prayed by the petitioner. The Deputy Collector, after issuing notice to be affected persons, including respondent No. 4, and after providing opportunity of hearing to them, allowed the application of the petitioner, vide order dated 31.1.2002 (Annexure P-1) while observing that prayer of the petitioner was genuine. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, respondent No. 4 Ram Bhagat filed an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, Water Services, Division Rohtak, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.4.2002 (Annexure P-2). Still not satisfied, respondent Ram Bhagat filed second appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, Yamuna Water Services Circle, Rohtak, who also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 18.7.2002 (Annexure P-3), while observing as under : "Revenue Missal, Khakka plan and other relevant papers produced in the court examined. Arguments of both the parties heard and properly considered. The plea of the appellant that his 'wari' may be fixed after the 'wari' of the respondent has no merit because his holding is big. Moreover, the plea of the respondent that his 'wari' is small and will finish in filling the water course has a merit. Keeping the above facts in view the appeal is rejected and D.C.O. Rohtak 5 Divn. Rohtak decision dt. 16.5.2002 is maintained." It is admitted position that the said order became final between the parties as the same was not further challenged by respondent No. 4 in revision before the Chief Canal Officer.
(3.) AFTER about two years of the passing of the above said order, respondent Ram Bhagat filed a fresh application before the Deputy Director, Gohana, under Section 55 of the Act for change of warabandi and prayed that his 'wari' be fixed after the 'wari' of the petitioner. The Deputy Collector, vide order dated 13.10.2004 (Annexure P-4), after taking into consideration the earlier decisions between the parties, as referred above, rejected the claim of respondent Ram Bhagat. However, it was observed that due to the high level of the area of Ram Bhagat, he should be given 15 minutes more time for filling his field.;