SARVSRI GURMIT SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners made a grievance before the Canal authorities that a portion of Khal through which they were irrigating their field, was demolished by the respondents to the petition. Up to the Divisional Canal Officer the petitioners succeeded in getting a finding that the disputed Khal did exist on the spot and that it had been demolished and the same deserved to be restored. Gurjant Singh one of the respondents challenged that order in appeal before Superintending Canal Officer. The petitioners appeared before him on May 19, 1977, and on that date he ordered preparation of plan etc. and adjourned the case sine die. The case was thereafter taken up for hearing on June 24, 1977. Intimation whereof, according to the petitioners, was given only to petitioners Nos. 1 and 4, who being ill sent a telegram to the Superintending Engineer for postponement of the hearing. The Superintending Canal Officer, however, proceeded with the hearing and decided the case accepting the appeal against the order of the Divisional Canal Officer holding that the Khal Ex. BC was not a sanctioned Khal and so the petitioners were not entitled to restoration thereof.

(2.) The grievance made by the petitioners in this petition is that the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioners who stood gravely prejudiced by the said order. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 was not able to satisfy me from the official record that in fact notices to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who were actually present when the earlier order was passed were served. The situation that emerges is that while petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 who were served did not appear as they had sent a telegram and hoped that the case would be adjourned, other affected petitioners were never served.

(3.) On behalf of the official respondents, it is admitted that the telegram sent by petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 received on the date of the hearing but it is maintained that the telegram was received at 3 P.M. by which time the impugned order had already been passed.