SHARANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Sub Divisional Officer of Canal Department sent a telegram bearing No. 273 dated 18.6.1983 to Respondent No. 4 Divisional Canal Officer-cum-Collector (for short "the Respondent-Collector"), with regard to alleged unauthorized irrigation by the Petitioners. In the wake of statement dated 6.6.1988 (Annexure P1) of Piara Singh, Reader/Ziledar, the case of unauthorized irrigation was prepared against the Petitioners after a lapse of five years, in view of the provisions of Northern India Canal & Drainage Act and Rules (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act and Rules"). They stoutly denied the charge by means of their joint statement (Annexure P2). The Collector imposed the penalty of eight times of the normal Abiana, by virtue of impugned order dated 3.10.1988 (Annexure P3).

(2.) Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioners filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division (Respondent No. 3), by way of impugned order dated 3.7.1989 (Annexure P4). The revision petition (Annexure P5) filed by them was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) (Respondent No. 2), vide impugned order dated 8.10.1990 (Annexure P6).

(3.) The Petitioners still did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P3, P4 and P6), by invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia on the ground that the same have been passed by the concerned authorities without any legal basis, cogent evidence and are contrary to the Act and Rules in this behalf.