Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to question the order dated 24.02.2011 whereby the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Sriganganagar has dismissed the appeal (No. 123/2010) preferred against the order dated 16.07.2010 as passed by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, South Division, Sriganganagar.
(2.) By the aforesaid order dated 16.07.2010, the Executive Engineer, while examining the revised barabandi proposals for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12, considered the claim made by the respondent No. 4 Ajayab Singh for water turn on a part of the land in question and opposition thereof by the present petitioner Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur; and found that though earlier, the water turn had been continuing in the name of the petitioner in relation to 5.10 bighas of land comprised in Murabba No. 39 and 5.00 bighas in Murabba No. 36 of Chak 6TK but then, the said land had been of joint khata and as per the shares of the respective parties, the petitioner was entitled for 6.15 bighas only; and, therefore, directed for re-submission of the proposals with reference to the existing revenue record and after taking report regarding possession from the Tehsildar (Revenue).
(3.) Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the petitioner preferred the appeal and contended before the Superintending Engineer that the water turn had continued in the name of her husband for last 25 years for the said 10.10 bighas of the land of Murabba Nos. 39 (5.10 bighas) and 36 (5.00 bighas); and that after the death of her husband, she was continuing in possession of the land in question. It was also contended that mutation of 1/70 part of the land of Murabba Nos. 33, 36 and 39 had wrongly been entered in the name of respondent No. 4 Ajayab Singh regarding which, an appeal was pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar ('SDO'). It was contended that until decision of the matter regarding ownership, as per the Standing Order No. 13, the existing arrangement ought not to have been changed and the respondent No.4 was not entitled to claim water turn for 3.10 bighas of land of Murabba No. 39. The learned Superintending Engineer has not agreed with the submissions of the petitioner-appellant and has proceeded to dismiss the appeal on 24.02.2011 with the following observations:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...;