GOPAL KRISHNA SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is preferred by Manphool Ram son of Bega Ram and prayed that the order passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer dated 1 -1 -1981 and that of Superintending Irrigation Officer dated 26 -11 -1981 respectively be quashed.
(2.) THE petitioner's contention is that he is resident of Chak 8 IDG, Tehsil Sangaria, district Sri Ganganagar. He owns 22.14 bighas of land in Chak 8 IDG and is joint owner of the land with his brothers. This land is cultivated by him and is in his possession. His brothers in other chaks own some other land. The water turn of the above land is in the name of the petitioner. Respondent No. 4, Krishna Chandra, made an application before the Divisional Irrigation Officer. Hanumangarh regarding the transfer of his land from Chak 12 PTP to 8 IDG Krishna Chandra is already having some land in Chalk 8 IDG. On his application, proceedings were initiated and in those proceedings the statement of Maniram, who is brother of the petitioner, Manphool, was recorded regarding transfer of five bighas of land situated in square No. 114/113, killas No. 2, 3, 4, and 5 and square No. 115/113 kila No. 1 of chak No. 12 PTP. It is further alleged that no notice was served on the petitioner or his brother Dhannaram and also on Balwantram, who is minor son of his brother Sheokaran, regarding these proceedings. It was also mentioned that the petitioner's land was suitable for transfer from Chak 12 PTP to 8 IDG along with the land of respondent No. 4, Krishna Chandra. Therefore, the Divisional Irrigation Officer, by his judgment dated 1 -1 -1981, transferred the land of Krishna Chandra, which is 32 bighas and transferred the land of the petitioner Manphool Ram, which is 5 bighas. During these proceedings, the Divisional Irrigation Officer also sanctioned a now water course from stone lying 114/132 to 114/133, square No. 114/132 kilas 5,6, 15, 16 and 25 and in square No. 114/133, kilas No. 1 to 5, i.e., from total 10 kilas of land. This land is in possession of the petitioner. In square No. 114/132 on stone line in kila No. 16 of Chak 8 IDG where the proposed water course is to be passed, there is a Dhani of the petitioner. It is alleged that according to provisions contained in Rule 4(2) of 1957 Rules, no notice was given to the petitioner regarding the sanction of the new water course in the petitioner's land. No notice was given to his other brothers. There is a prescribed pro -forma in the Rules and procedure of Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Act, 1954 has to be followed, but without following such procedure, the Divisional Irrigation Officer, passed the order dated 1 -1 -1980. An appeal was preferred against that order before the Superintending Irrigation Officer, who also rejected the appeal vide order dated 28 -11 -1981. It is also contended that the Divisional Irrigation Officer has no power to sanction the new water course. A procedure has been laid down in Sections 21 and 23 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954. Section 24 of the Act says that within 30 days from the publication of a notice Under Sections 22 and 23, as may be, any person interested in the land or water course to which the notice refers, may apply to the Collector by petition stating his objections to the construction or transfer for which application has been made. The Collector may either reject the petition or proceed to enquire into the validity of the objection, giving previous notice to Divisional Irrigation Officer of the place and then the Collector shall record in writing ail orders passed by him under this section. So it is contended that only the Collector is empowered to grant a new water course. The Divisional Irrigation Officer is only a recommending authority and he has no power to grant or sanction new water course. Under such circumstances, Manphool has challenged the order of Divisional Irrigation Officer and Superintending Irrigation Officer.
(3.) MR . B.L. Purohit, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, has put in appearance and objected to the writ petition.;