PARGAT SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER, LUDHIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed laying challenge to the order dated 20.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellants, praying for quashing of the order dated 30.1.2007 passed by Superintending Canal Officer, respondent No.1, reviewing his earlier order dated 20.11.2006.

(2.) IT is the contention of counsel for the appellants that the Superintending Canal Officer (respondent No.1) has no power to review his own order under Section 30 -A or Section 30 -B of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 (for short, "Canal Act"). In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon two judgements of this Court i.e. Nand Singh and others Vs. Superintending Canal Officer and others, 1969 PLR 150 and Sube Singh and others Vs. The Superintending Engineer and others, 1983 PLJ 351.

(3.) HIS contention is that all the co -sharers, who have common interest with the appellants, are not required to be served when they have not preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, which, according to the appellants, is against them. The co -sharers, who have accepted the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, cannot be said to be required to be served under Rule 87 of the Canal Rules as the interest is not opposed to that of the appellants. He further placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Biru Vs. Suraj Bhan, 1983 PLR 568 to contend that all the co -sharers are not required to be impleaded or served and represented in the proceedings nor are they required to be served individually. He, on this basis, contends that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable and deserves to be set -aside. Prayer has also been made to allow the writ petition by setting -aside the order dated 30.1.2007 (Annexure P -6 appended with the writ petition) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, respondent No.1.