DONGAR RAM Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Dongar Ram and respondent No. 3, Sajjan Ram, are the share-holders in the watercourse outlet No. R.D. 76400-R. Ramsara minor. The petitioner used to get water for his fields through the watercourse ACDE which was demolished by respondent No. 3 sometime in the year 1967. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 30-FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (Act No. VIII of 1873) to the Divisional Canal Officer for the restoration of the said demolished watercourse. The Divisional Canal Officer ordered the restoration of the aforesaid watercourse. Aggrieved by the said order of the Divisional Canal Officer, respondent No. 3 went up in appeal to the Superintending Canal Officer, respondent No. 1 under Section 30FF, sub-section (4). Respondent No. 1, vide his order, dated 9.10.1968 (copy annexure 'X' to this writ petition), allowed the appeal of respondent No. 3 and directed the Divisional Canal Officer to restore the demolished watercourse and allowed it to function till such time that a new water-course was sanctioned in accordance with law.

(2.) The Divisional Canal Officer, in pursuance of the aforesaid order, annexure 'X', prepared a new scheme in accordance with the provisions of law and after hearing the objections, from the concerned parties, including the petitioner, approved the same, as required under Section 30-B, sub-section (2), and sanctioned the Khal CDE. The alignment of the said Khal CDE was shifted by one Karam from the Kotha constructed by respondent No. 3 with a view to obstruct the running thereof. Respondent No. 3 went up in revision under Section 30-B, sub-section (3), to the Superintending Canal Officer, who, vide his order, dated 18.6.1969 (copy annexure 'B' to the writ petition), revised the scheme prepared by the Divisional Canal Officer, vide his order dated 16.5.1969 (copy annexure 'A' to the writ petition). The petitioner has come up to this Court challenging the order (copy annexure 'B') on the ground that respondent No. 1 has framed a new scheme which is not open to him under the provisions of the law, as the same can be prepared only by the Divisional Canal Officer under Section 30-B, sub-sections (1) and (2). He has challenged the aforesaid order on yet another ground that respondent No. 1, while passing the impugned order, allowed himself to be influenced by the report of the Ziledar and that of the Patwari.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel on both the sides and after perusing the record of the writ petition with their help, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the same.