Anil Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

1 Petition herein is, inter alia , seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar, whereby, the prayer of respondent No.5 regarding shifting of his 32.5/nil acres area from exisiting outlet RD-27500/TL to proposed outlet RD-18230/L, Udepur Minor and further for conversion of area from UCA to CCA of village Matloda, Tehsil Barwala, District Hisar, has been allowed.

¶14

1.1 A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Superintending Canal Officer, Hisar as well as order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Chief Canal Officer, Haryana, whereby appeal as well as revision filed by petitioners against the order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-6) has been dismissed.

¶15

ANKIT 2026.05.06 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶16

CWP-11851-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶17

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the paperbook with his able assistance.

¶18

Evidently, respondent No.5 approached the Canal Authorities for transfer of his 32.5 acres area from exisiting outlet RD-27500/TL to proposed outlet RD-18230/L.

¶19

3.1 Upon the receipt of the aforesaid demand from respondent No.5, the matter was inquired into and the learned Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar vide order dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure P-6), accepted the demand by returning the following finding:-

¶20

“ Decision : I have examined the record including Khaka Plan, irrigation statement, command statement and heard the parties at length. The scheme was explained to the shareholders who attended the court in rejoinder to the notices. From the perusal of khakha plan, it is observed that the water courses have been lined in the chaks of both outlets and no water course reaches up to the area in question from both side. After site Inspection on 14.07.2022, it is noticed that the running water course of proposed source is far away four killas length whereas from existing source is 10 killas length as shown in khaka plan. As per command statement, it is revealed that the area in question cannot receive irrigation by flow but there are many mechanical devices/instruments area available to carried out Irrigation in practice. After perusal of irrigation statement, it is noticed that over all irrigation of existing outlet is 89% whereas proposed outlet is 131% which is better source. The irrigation of area of question is Nil so far. The objection of shareholders is without any reason and not justified.”

¶21

The aforesaid order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-6) has been

¶22

further affirmed by the learned Superintending Canal Officer, vide order

¶23

ANKIT 2026.05.06 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶24

CWP-11851-2026 (O&M) -3-

¶25

dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure P-7) and even further revision preferred by petitioners before the learned Chief Canal Officer, Haryana has been dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure P-9), the relevant extract thereof reads as under:-

¶26

“I have gone through the complete proceeding of this appeal case initiated by the courts below. It has been observed that the area in question is capable to receive irrigation at site by way of lift system. Moreover, the better command is available in the proposed source as is evident from the finding of the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services Circle, Hisar mentioned in para number second of his decision. Every irrigator has right to get his area transferred from the chak of one outlet to the chak of another outlet where the better chances of irrigation are available. The objection of the appellants against transfer of 32.53 acres area of the respondents from the chak of outlet at RD 27500-Tail Left to the chak of outlet at RD 18230-L Udeypur Minor is totally baseless as the discharge of each affected outlet is allowed on its Culturable Commanded Area and thus question does not arise of bearing any type of loss by the appellants on inclusion of 32.53 acres area of respondents in the chak of their outlet at RD 18230-L Udeypur Minor.”

¶27

A perusal of the above-extracted orders passed by learned Divisional Canal Officer, as well as learned Chief Canal Officer, Haryana, would show that demand of respondent No.5 was found to be justified by recording the following grounds:-

¶28

(i) From the perusal of khakha plan, it is observed that the watercourses have been lined in the chaks of both the

¶29

ANKIT 2026.05.06 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶30

CWP-11851-2026 (O&M) -4-

¶31

outlets and that no water course reaches up to the area in question.

¶32

(ii) Upon spot inspection carried out on 14.07.2022, it was noticed that the proposed source was only 4 killas away from the area in question, whereas the existing source was about 10 killas away from the land in question.

¶33

(iii) As per the irrigation statement, the irrigation from the existing outlet was 89% whereas the irrigation from the proposed outlet was 131%, accordingly, the proposed outlet was a better source.

¶34

While allowing the transfer of area, it has been specifically recorded by learned Divisional Canal Officer, that the cost of adjustment of the outlet as well as the remolding of the aligned watercourse (if required) was to be borne by the beneficiaries i.e. respondent No.5 herein.

¶35

Even the learned Chief Canal Officer has returned a finding that a better command is available from the proposed source and that every irrigator has a right to get his area transferred from chak of one outlet to chak of another outlet where the better chances of irrigation are available.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has been unable to refute the aforesaid observations made by the Canal Authorities below.

¶37

In Sham Sunder v. Superintending Canal Officer; Ferozepur, 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 35; a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:-

¶38

"5. Even otherwise, we find no ground to interfere. The Canal Authorities are the best judges for the situation at the spot. If on a consideration of the matter it has been found that the fields of the petitioner can be properly irrigated from the existing outlet, this court cannot interfere in proceedings under Article 226 of

¶39

ANKIT 2026.05.06 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶40

CWP-11851-2026 (O&M) -5-

¶41

the Constitution unless it is shown that the order is patently illegal and arbitrary. Nothing of the sort has been pointed out... "

¶42

9.1 In Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(67) RCR (Civil) 760; a Division Bench of this Court observed as under: -

¶43

"...We are of the opinion that the matter of transfer of an area from one outlet to another by the canal authorities should be seldom interfered with in the writ jurisdiction, particularly when the canal authorities had taken the decision after hearing the interested parties and in the interest of better irrigation, and also considering that while making such transfer, the maximum land will be properly irrigated... "

¶44

Considering the totality of circumstances, I see no compelling

¶45

reason, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present matter. Resultantly, the instant writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶46

All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.

¶47

(HARSH BUNGER) 05.05.2026 JUDGE ankit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶48

ankit

¶49

ANKIT 2026.05.06 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Anil Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajender Vs State of Haryana

Rasal Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sunder Pal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Heera Lal Dhawan Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gram Panchayat Arian Wala Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bansi Devi Vs the Commissioner