P.C.Jain, J. - (1.) BHALLA Ram and others have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, Respondent No. 1, dated 5th May, 1964 (copy Annexure 'E' to the petition).
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts as stated in the petition are that the Petitioners jointly own Khasra Nos. 67/25, 60/21 and 96/5 situated in village Balla, Tehsil and District Karnal. The Petitioners have been irrigating their fields from a water course shown by words 'A' to 'C', 'C' to 'D' and then 'D' to 'F' in the plan Annexure 'A' to the petition. Respondent No. 3, thinking that his lands were not being irrigated properly, wanted to have another water course which was to pass through the fields of the Petitioners. With this object in view, Respondent No. 3 got certain proceedings initiated through the Divisional Canal Officer under the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act (Punjab Act No. XI of 1953) (hereinafter referred to as the Requisitioning Act). The Divisional Canal Officer submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner acting as the Competent Authority under the Requisitioning Act, for the acquisition of the Petitioner' land to the extent of 18 Marlas for providing direct water course to the fields of Respondent No. 3. The Petitioners contested the proceedings before the Competent Authority but did not succeed and the Competent Authority allowed the acquisition of the land vide its order dated 28th June 1960 (copy Annexure 'B' to the petition). Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Competent Authority, an appeal was preferred by the Petitioners, which was ultimately allowed by the Home Secretary to Government of Punjab vide his order dated 17th July, 1961 (copy Annexure 'C' to the petition). It is averred that having not succeeded in getting the land of the Petitioners acquired under the Requisitioning Act, Respondent No. 3 approached the Divisional Canal Officer under Section 30 A of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for providing the same water course 'AB' through the fields of the Petitioners and this time Respondent No. 3 ultimately succeeded and the Divisional Canal Officer, passed the impugned order by which water course 'AB' has been provided. Certain allegations of mala fides have been made but it is not necessary to state them as no advantage was derived by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, from these allegations, at the time of hearing.
(3.) RETURN has been filed on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 in which the material allegations made in the petition have been controverted.;