D.P. Gupta, Actg. C.J.
1. The petitioner has challenged by means of this writ petition the authority of the Executive Engineer, Gang Canal, South Division, Sri Ganganagar, who is also by virtue of his office the Divisional Irrigation Officer, to take proceedings for shifting of outlet in pursuance of notice Ex. 3. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that two Divisions, viz. C.A.D. I and C.A.D. II have been created by the State Government Under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainge Act 1954, hereinafter referred to as '1954 Act' and that R.B. Chaks have been placed in the C.A.D. Division II. The petitioner's Chak No. '51' R.B. has, therefore, been placed in the C.A.D. Division II. Hence, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Executive Engineer, Gang Canal, South Division, has no jurisdiction left to take any proceedings for shifting of outlet in respect of the petitioner's chak.
2.The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is based on on a notification issued by the Irrigation Department of the State Government dated December 4, 1979, by which the Executive Engineers, Irrigation, deputed for the work of lining of the water courses and farm development in Gang and Bhakhra Canal system have also been authorised to function as Divisional Irrigation Officers.
3. The reply filed by the State shows that two Divisions CAD I and CAD II have been created for lining of water courses of R.B. and P.S. distributories. It has also been stated on behalf of the State that in the Chak of the petitioner no lining work has been taken up by any of the two Divisions. The work of lining of water courses has been undertaken under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation, Act 1975, hereinafter referred to as the '1975 Act.' Sub-section (j) of Section 2 of the 1975 Act has defined the 'land development works' which are to be carried out under the provisions of the 1975 Act and admittedly the land development works specified in Section 2(J) of the 1975 Act do not include the matter relating to shifting of an outlet in an exitsing system of irrigation.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was unable to place before this court any notification which is alleged to have been issued Under Section 4 of the 1954 Act, creating three Divisions for the purposes of the 1954 Act out of the Gang Canal South Division. In para 9 of the writ petition it has been mentioned that two divisions have been created by the State Government but at the time of arguments the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that three divisions have been created and a part of the original south Division still continues to remain as the South Division, while two separate Divisions C.A.D. I and C.A.D. II have been created. The notification issued by the department on December 4, 1979, shows that the powers and functions of the Divisional Irrigation Officers have also been conferred on the Executive Engineers, Irrigation, who have been deputed for the work of lining of water courses Under Section 4 of the 1954 Act, obviously for carrying on the work of lining of water courses and such works are included under the 'land development' as specified in Sub-section (J) of Section 2 of the 1975 Act Normal functioning of the system of irrigation does not appear to have been disturbed & the two divisions-C.A.D. I & C.A.D. II. which have been created for the purposes of lining of water courses, are assigned only land development work as specified in 1975 Act. The jurisdiction of the Executive Engineer, Gang Canal, South Division over the area of Chak No. 51 R.B. as Divisional Irrigation Officer, for the purposes of alteration of the position of the outlet has not been taken away merely because for some specified work of lining of the irrigation canals or water courses, specified officers have been deputed and for that limited purpose the powers of the Divisional Irrigation Officers have been conferred on them. In my view, the Divisional Irrigation Officer, namely, the Executive Engineer, Gang Canal, South Division still retained the jurisdiction which was vested in him, for taking proceeding regarding shifting of outlet and as such the notice Ex. 3 issued by him cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, nor the proceedings, which are being taken in pursuance of the notice Ex. 3, can be said to be without jurisdition.
5. The writ petition, therefore, appears to be without any merit and is hereby dismissed.