PARTAP SINGH Vs. MIDHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court where by the learned Judge quashed the orders passed by the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer, dated 4th April, 1967 and 15th January, 1969, respectively.

(2.) THE respondents in appeal are residents of village Jangirana, Tehsil and District bhatinda. Their lands are irrigated from Jangirana Minor R. D. 10580 T. R. The appellants and Gurpanch Singh and others belong to village Bahadargarh Jandian and outlet R. D. 150-R, Lalbhai Distributory commanded part of the area of this village. The appellant filed an application under Section 20 of the Northern India canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Divisional canal Officer, Bhatinda Division praying that the area situated in Chak of R. D. 150-R Lalbhai Distributory was not receiving irrigation from the original source and be transferred to outlet R. D. 10580-T. R. Jangirana Minor. This application was allowed by the Divisional Canal Officer after hearing the respondents in the present appeal. This order was confirmed by the Superintending Canal Officer. The translation thereof is Annexure B-1, to the petition. The respondents in the present appeal, who were dissatisfied with this order, moved a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and their principal contention in the petition was that the order could not be passed under section 20 of the Act and that the relief could only be granted to the appellants if they had moved an application under Section 30-A of the Act. This petition came up for hearing before Mr. Justice P. C. Jain and the learned Judge allowed the same. The learned Judge took the view that the case fell within Section 30-A (1) (b) of the Act. The result was that the order of the Divisional Canal Officer which had been confirmed by the Superintending Canal Officer was quashed. The appellants being dissatisfied with that order have come up in appeal under clause x of the Letters Patent.

(3.) THE contention of Mr. Gujral, learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge wrongly applied the provisions of Section 30-A to the facts of the present case. His contention is partially correct. It is, therefore, necessary to set out the pleading which will disclose as to whether the provisions of Section 20 or Section 30-A of the Act would govern the case. In pare, 2 of the petition, it is stated that: