MILKHA SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A draft scheme was prepared regarding the land of four villages, namely, Jagatgarh Bander, Jaurkian, Ullak, Chuhria for being irrigated by five different outlets to Ullak minor, namely, R.D. 1200 TL, 2000 L, 4600 L, 6400 L and 7200 TL. Objections were invited to the abovesaid draft scheme in accordance with law. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 objected to their areas being attached to the outlet No. 6400 L and demanded that 40 acres of their land be taken out from the command of outlet 6400 L and be brought under the command area of outlet 7200 TL. The Divisional Canal Officer vide his order dated 17th July, 1969 (Annexure A) whereby he approved the draft scheme, rejected the objection of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that the shareholders of outlet No. 7200 TL who belonged to four different villages were not prepared to accept the inclusion of the area of the aforesaid respondents.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, challenged the aforesaid order of the Divisional Canal Officer, Annexure A, before the Superintending Canal Officer in revision. The Superintending Canal Officer vide his order dated 14th September, 1970, Annexure B, accepted the revision and inter alia included the entire area of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the command area of outlet No. 7200 TL and it is this order of the Superintending Canal Officer that has been challenged in the present writ petition by 15 petitioners, six of whom were personally served. Out of these three, namely, Gurbachan Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Jagar Singh were present at the time of hearing before the Superintending Canal Officer alongwith Kartar Singh, Avtar Singh, Gurdev Singh, Bhajan Singh etc. who appeared in response to service by beat of drum in the village.

(3.) The impugned order, Annexure B, has been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners on two grounds : (1) that the impugned order is a nullity as the petitioners were neither made party to the proceedings before the Superintending Canal Officer nor they were served notices of the date of the proceedings before him; and (2) that there was no scheme prepared and hence all proceedings including the impugned order were vitiated as the same were not in accordance with law.