LAWS(P&H)-1982-1-85

GHUKKAR SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER AND OTHERS

Decided On January 27, 1982
GHUKKAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
Superintending Canal Officer and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was not affected by the order passed by the Division Canal Officer under section 30-B(2) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The superintending Canal Officer, who in exercise of power under section 30-B(3) of the Act is competent to modify the scheme published under section 30-C of the Act as also the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer under section 30-B(2) of the Act, modified the order as also the scheme.

(2.) Neithere the impugned order dated 28.1.1980 nor the record available with the counsel appearing for the respondent-State shows the presence of the petitioner before the Superintending Canal Officer. Subsection (3) of section 30-B of the Act expressly requires that the Superintending Canal Officer, after affording to the person affected an opportunity of being heard, could modify the scheme or the order as the case may be. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he had not been heard by the Superintending Canal Officer. He was not even a party before him because he was not a party before the Divisional canal Officer. The records have been seen which showed that service had been effected upon the petitioner.

(3.) It is unthinkable that despite having come to know that the superintending Canal Officer wanted to deal with the matter which could affect the petitioner adversely, yet the petitioner would not have cared to present himself personally or through a counsel to watch his interest. I, therefore, hold the impugned order to be void ab initio on account of the S.C.O. having not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and set aside the same. I direct the parties through their counsel to appear before the Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala, on 23-2-1982, who would redecide the matter after affording due opportunity to both the sides. If possible, he should decide the matter the same day, but not beyond two months from today.