BAKHTAWAR SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 are rightholders of village Paul Nau, Tehsil Phillaur, district Jullundur. Their lands touch at one point. Respondents 3 and 4 made a complaint to the Divisional Canal Officer that the petitioners had dismantled the watercourse BC from which they were getting water for irrigating their fields. The petitioners have stated that the Divisional Canal Officer never issued any notice to them to show cause why the alleged watercourse BC was dismantled. Respondents 1 and 2 have not stated anything with regard to any such enquiry having been made. However, a notice was issued by the Divisional Canal Officer to the petitioners requiring client to restore the said watercourse. It is inferred from this fact that the Divisional Canal Officer found the watercourse running on the spot. The file of that enquiry has been brought by the learned Deputy Advocate-General, but it is not clear who made that enquiry. One thing, however, is quite evident that the Divisional Canal Officer himself did not make any enquiry whatsoever before requiring the petitioners to restore the alleged dismantled watercourse BC. The provisions of Section 30-FF of the Northern India Canal & Drainge Act are quite clear, that is, on receiving an application under sub-section (1) the Divisional Canal Officer himself has to make an enquiry. It has been stated by the petitioners that no notice of any such enquiry was given by the Divisional Canal Officer and that fact is not denied by respondents 1 and 2. I, therefore, hold that basis of the notice issued by Divisional Canal Officer to the petitioners requiring them to restore the dismantled watercourse is non-existent. The impugned notice issued is, therefore, without jurisdiction because the Divisional Canal Officer could not delegate the power to any subordinate officer. In this view of the matter, the notice issued by the Divisional Canal Officer and the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer on appeal are liable to be quashed, as being without jurisdiction. I accordingly quash both the orders and direct that the Divisional Canal Officer shall himself proceed and decide the complaint of respondents 3 and 4 in accordance with the provisions of Section 30-FF of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act. I may also point out that the petitioners have stated that the alleged watercourse was neither a sanctioned nor an authorised one and the Canal authorities have no jurisdiction to take any decision with regard thereto. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jagar Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer, Hissar Bhakra Canal Circle, Hissar and others, 1972 74 PunLR 315. The petitioners are at liberty to cite this judgment before the Divisional Canal Officer who will decide the matter keeping the observations of the Division Bench in view. This petition is accordingly accepted and the impugned orders are quashed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Petition accepted.