VIRSA SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders of the Divisional Canal Officer, dated October 10, 1972 (copy Annexure 'A') and the Superintending Canal Officer, dated July 20, 1973 (copy Annexure 'B').

(2.) The facts which have led to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioners are right-holders of village Islamwala, tehsil Fazilka, district Ferozepore. Their lands are being irrigated by outlet at R.d. 88400-R of Bhagsar minor. Respondents 3 to 13 are also residents and right-holders of village Islamwala and their lands in that village are also being irrigated by the aforesaid outlet. In the chakbandi of the above outlet, there were 38 acres of land situated in village Mahuana, tehsil Fazilka, which is situated at very high level and was not commanded since the inception of canal system in that village. Respondents 3 to 13 purchased the uncommanded area in 1970. They made an application under Section 20 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to get water supply for those 38 acres of land mentioned above from outlet at R.D. 88400-Right, Bhagsar minor, on June 10, 1970. They made another application thereafter, to the same effect. The Divisional Canal Officer on those applications made an inquiry into the matter and alleged to have taken a decision on October 10, 1972, and sent the case to the Superintending Canal Officer for confirmation thereof. The decision taken by the Divisional Canal Officer on October 10, 1972, was not announced to the petitioners which he was bound to do under Section 20 read with Rule 2 of the Government of Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, issued under Act VIII of 1873 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The Divisional Canal Officer did not follow Rules 79-A to 79-I for serving the petitioners. Teja Singh, one of the right-holders, filed an appeal against the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, dated October 10, 1972, to the Superintending Canal Officer. He without following the prescribed procedure passed an order on July 20, 1973 (copy Annexure 'B') and dismissed his apeal. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders on the ground that they are illegal and without jurisdiction. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer on October 10, 1972, was not announced. Mr. Kang has argued that the said contention has no substance as the order was announced at the spot. The alleged order of October 10, 1972 is as follows :-