K.S.GAREWAL,J. - (1.) GHARSI Ram receives irrigation for his land from water course RD-14525-L Odhan Minor, but his land is at some distance from the outlet. Therefore, when new outlet RD-16535-L was constructed on the minor, the petitioner asked for transfer of his area from the existing outlet to the new outlet to improve the irrigation.
(2.) THE petitioner's application was investigated by the Ziledar who sent his report to Sub-Divisional Canal Officer and both officers recommended his case. Thereafter a draft scheme was prepared under Section 17 and published under Section 18 (1) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act 1974, objections were invited and the matter was heard on November 12, 2003 by Divisional Canal Officer, Sirsa. At the hearing, Gharsi Ram naturally pleaded that his area was only at distance of 1 killa from the new outlet, and also undertook to pay the cost of the adjustment of outlets. Rohtash, Vinod Kumar, Surinder Kumar, Ajay, Kulwant Singh and Radhe Ram-I also supported the petitioner and said that they have no objection to the change. The matter was again heard on December 10, 2003 when Radhe Ram-II, Rai Singh, Om Parkash, Net Ram and Jagdish Chander (respondent 4) appeared before the Divisional Canal Officer and stated that the water course of the new outlet was their personal water course. They would not allow the water course to be constructed or the area of the petitioner to be included in the new outlet. They further stated that all the share-holders had been requested to get their area included when the new outlet was sanctioned but the other share holders had flatly refused to bear the expenses.
(3.) HOWEVER , the Divisional Canal Officer accepted the recommendations of the Ziledar and Sub Divisional Officer and concluded that the petitioner's area was near the head of the proposed outlet, at a distance of 1 acre, whereas it was 13 acres from the existing outlet. Therefore, 11.90 acres area of the petitioner were separated from the existing outlet and included to the new outlet. In this way, the petitioner's application was accepted. Jagdish Chander took the matter in appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, who dismissed the appeal vide order March 9, 2005.;