DASSU Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment of a single judge dated October 3, 1969 dismissing the writ petition filed by Dassu appellant against the Superintending Canal Officer, the Divisional Officer and Ram Parkash respectively impleaded as respondents 1 to 3 and five other respondents. Facts leading to the appeal are as follows:2. The appellant and respondents 3 to 8 are shareholders of village Bhayapur. Their lands were being irrigated from R. D. 3500-R of the Bohar Distributory. Application was made by respondent No. 3 on July 24, 1967 praying that his area of 21-52 acres being served from R. D. 3500-R be transferred to R. D. 4335-R of Bohar Distributory. That application was dismissed without hearing respondent No. 3. Later on, respondent No. 2 pointed out to respondent No. 1 that the land of respondent No. 3 was already being irrigated from R. D. 4335-R. Exercising power under section 30-A (1) (b) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage, Act No. VIII of 1873 (hereinafter called the Act), respondent No. 2 suo motu drew up scheme making reallotment of the area of respondent No. 3 for its being served from R. D. 4335-R instead of R. D. 3500-R. The scheme was published. The appellant filed objections to the scheme so devised. Respondent No. 2 passed detailed order on March 19, 1968 holding that in his opinion respondent No. 3 being already served and served better from R. D. 4335-R, his area had been rightly transferred from outlet R. D. No. 3500-R and by so doing no harm or injury could be caused to any other person and that the transfer was in the interest of better irrigation. From that order, the appellant filed revision petition before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 agreed with the order of re-allotment of the area of respondent No. 3 to R. D. 4335-R and dismissed the revision petition. 3. Being dissatisfied with the above order of the canal authorities, the appellant filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution impugning the validity of the orders, by which the transfer of the area of respondent No. 3 from R. D. 3500-R to R. D. 4335-R had been upheld. 4. Mr. Satya Parkash Jain appearing on behalf of the appellant-contends that the application of respondent No. 3 having been dismissed, suo motu interference by respondent No. 2 under sub-section (2) of S. 30-B of the Act is not called for and that respondent No. 1 could not uphold the order of respondent No. 2 in revision preferred before him. The question, which requires determination is as to whether the order passed by respondent No. 2 after application of respondent No. 3 had been dismissed without hearing him, falls under Section 30-A, Clause (b) or under sub-s. (2) of S. 30-B of the Act. Section 30-A of the Act runs as under: