HARBEANT SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harbeant Singh and others have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, dated 18th November, 1971 (Copy Annexure 'B' to the petition). The brief facts of this case as given in the petition read as under :

(2.) There is no representation on behalf of the official respondent. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 in the shape of an affidavit in which the material allegations made in the petition have been controverted.

(3.) The only contention raised before me by Mr. Harbans Lal learned counsel for the petitioners, was that the Additional Director had no jurisdiction to provide watercourse to respondent No. 2 and that it was the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities under the Canal Act that a watercourse could be provided to a particular shareholder. On the other hand, it was contended by Mr. H.S. Gujral, learned counsel for the private respondents, that watercourse AA1BCDEGMN was a schemi khal which was provided during the consolidation proceedings, that the said khal did not work properly, that by the impugned order the Additional Director had made change in the schemi khal, and that this act of the Additional Director was perfectly legal and justified as in exercise of his powers under Section 42 of the Act, an amendment or modification could be made in the schemi khal which was provided during the consolidation proceedings.