SAJJAN SINGH Vs. MUKAND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sajjan Singh has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer dated 20.8.1966 and 26.3.1968 respectively.

(2.) The land of Sajjan Singh petitioner was being irrigated from outlet at RD 6650 tail front while the lands of Mukund Singh, Joginder Singh and Hamir Singh private respondents were being irrigated from outlet at RD 25859-R Arniwala Distributary. The Divisional Canal Officer ordered the excavation of a watercourse shown as 'ABC' in the site-plan Annexure 'A', as the same had been provided at the time of consolidation in the village. Sajjan Singh petitioner objected to it. He approached the Divisional Canal Officer with a prayer that the watercourse should not be dug in his lands but this prayer was not accepted and the watercourse 'ABC' was carved in his lands. Aggrieved with the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, Sajjan Singh went up in revision to the Superintending Canal Officer who, by his order dated 26.3.1968, shifted the watercourse from 'ABC' to a new location shown as 'AXC' on the site-plan Annexure 'A'. This also falls in the lands of the petitioner. Aggrieved with this order, Sajjan Singh petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) Mr. Nand Lal Dhingra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that Sajjan Singh petitioner had filed a revision petition against the order of the Divisional Canal Officer who had ordered the watercourse 'ACB' to be excavated in his lands without any authority. Instead of deleting this watercourse, the Superintending Canal Officer has provided the watercourse 'AXC'. This is clearly illegal. The Superintending Canal Officer could change the alignment of the watercourse only if the Divisional Canal Officer had framed a Scheme and a revision had been filed against that order. According to the learned counsel and even the departmental authorities, the watercourse 'ABC' in the present case had been sanctioned by the Consolidation authorities. It had not been provided by the Divisional Canal Officer under Section 30-A of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). No Scheme was prepared by the Canal authorities to provide this watercourse. Consequently, the Superintending Canal Officer could not change the alignment because there was no revision petition against any order passed in exercise of the powers under Section 30-A of the Act.