BACHAN SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, it has been stated that the petitioners and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were the residents of village Bhagwanpura, tehsil Patti, district Amritsar. The petitioners applied to the Divisional Canal Officer, respondent No. 2, for the sanctioning of a new watercourse through the lands of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 because the watercourse sanctioned by the earlier scheme was not properly irrigating their entire land. Respondent No. 2 sanctioned a new watercourse which was one Karam wide and situate on the southern side of Killa Nos. 23/9,10 and 24/6,7. It is then alleged that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not part with the land. Upon this, the file was sent to the Collector, Amritsar, for acquiring the same. The Collector, Amritsar acquired this land and fixed the compensation at Rs. 137.98 vide his order dated February 3, 1965. The petitioners deposited this amount with the Sub-Divisional Officer (Canal), Tarn Taran, and constructed the watercourse and started irrigating their lands from the new watercourse. It is alleged that they continued to do so for the last five years or so. Sometime in the middle of 1970, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 dismantled this watercourse. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal against the order dated October 11, 1962, passed by respondent No. 2 long after the period of limitation for filing such appeals had expired. The Superintending Canal Officer allowed this appeal on February 16, 1971, and ordered that the petitioners should not be allowed to pay compensation in cash and that they should compensate respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by giving them land equivalent to one and a half times the land which came under this watercourse.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged this order on the ground that there is no provision in the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), which entitles the Superintending Canal Officer to fix the compensation in the form of land. On the other hand, Section 28 of Act shows that the compensation has to be cash compensation.

(3.) This case came up before me last week and I asked the learned counsel for the respondents to bring to my notice any provision of the statute, rule or executive instructions which entitled the Superintending Canal Officer to fix compensation in the form of land instead of cash compensation for the purposes of acquiring land needed for a watercourse. The learned counsel for the respondents has frankly conceded that he has not been able to lay his hands on any such provision of law or executive instructions relevant to the point.