KARTAR SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the orders dated 23.2.1972 (Annexure 'C') and 8.1.1973 (Annexure 'E') passed by the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer, respectively, whereby the allotment of Nikal (residue) water in his favour was upset. One of the grounds raised before the Superintending Canal Officer by the petitioner was that prior to the initiation of these proceedings before the Deputy Collector, a similar dispute between the parties determining entitlement to Nikal water had been settled by the superior authorities, i.e., the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer. The final order passed by the latter is dated 10.6.1970 (Annexure 'A') to this petition.

(2.) It deserves to be noticed at this stage that none of the respondents to this petition (Nos. 1 to 15) had filed any return to controvert the factual assertions made in the same. As per 'Annexure 'A' it is patent that respondent No. 3 Kartar Singh son of S. Mal Singh was a party to the said order. In view of this factual position, I am prima facie of the view that he was not entitled or competent to maintain another petition before the Divisional Canal Officer which resulted in passing of the impugned order 'Annexure E'. This aspect of the matter has not at all been dealt with by the Superintending Canal Officer in spite of the fact that a specific challenge to that effect levelled, before him in the revision petition, copy of which is 'Annexure D'. Besides that, the impugned order is not at all a speaking order and does not deal with the merits of the case.

(3.) For these reasons alone the final order Annexure E is unsustainable and has to be set aside. I order accordingly. As a necessary consequence of this, the case is sent back to the Superintending Canal Officer for decision afresh in accordance with law and the observations made above. I, however, do not pass any order as to costs.