LACHHMAN SINGH Vs. HEM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent may briefly be stated as follows :-

(2.) In this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge two points were urged. The first was that the word "approved" also implies "disapproved" and, consequently under sub-section (3) of Section 30-B, the Superintending Canal Officer has jurisdiction to entertain a revision irrespective of the fact whether the scheme has been approved or disapproved or rejected. Secondly, it was urged that, in any case, once a draft scheme is published under sub-section (1) of Section 30-B, then under sub-section (2) of the said Section the Divisional Canal Officer has no jurisdiction to reject the scheme. This officer has to approve it, as it is or with or without modification. Consequently, the order of the Divisional Canal Officer was itself bad and, therefore, the Superintending Canal Officer had jurisdiction to set that order right. In any case, that order of the Divisional Canal Officer should also be set aside and the matter remanded to him.

(3.) Dealing with the first point, it is not necessary to discuss the matter in detail, because the same has been fully discussed in the Bench decision in Dalip Singh's case . The argument is very simple. Section 30-A provides that a Divisional Canal Officer may, on his own motion or on the application of a shareholder, prepare a draft scheme to provide for all or any of the matters detailed therein. There are five such matters mentioned, including the matter of reallotment of areas served by one water-course to another, as was the matter in this case. This draft scheme is then given publicity and, after receiving objections as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 30-B, the Divisional Canal Officer has to consider them under sub-section (2) which runs as follows :-