RANJIT SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING (ENGINEER) CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 3 and 4 made an application to the Divisional Canal Officer that their land measuring 45/42 acres was not being irrigated properly from outlet No. 54341R, minor No. 7 Boha and that their area should be transferred to outlet No. 9890/R, minor No. 7 Boha, where they had already other area. After issuing notice, the Divisional Canal Officer sanctioned the scheme on May 18, 1971. Against that scheme, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Superintending Canal Officer which was rejected on April 19, 1972, with the following order :-

(2.) The short point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Superintending Canal Officer has given no reasons for rejecting the revision as barred by time. The petitioners in their grounds of revision had stated various facts entitling them to file the revision on the date they did. Their pleas shortly put were that they had never been served with the notice of the scheme under Section 30B(1) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), or with the notice of the date of hearing. The order of the Superintending Canal Officer does not show that he considered the pleas advanced by the petitioners. At the hearing of the writ petition, it has been pointed out that under Section 30-B(3) of the Act, the period of thirty days for filing a revision petition to the Superintending Canal Officer starts from the date of the publication of the approved scheme for implementation under Section 30-C of the Act. There is no material on the record of this writ petition as to the date on which the approved scheme was published under Section 30-C of the Act from which the period of limitation could start. It was held by Sarkaria, J., in S. Dalip Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1969 PunLJ 61, that the period of thirty days started from the date of publication of the scheme and if there was no proper publication of the approved scheme, the period of limitation never started. This matter was also considered by a Division Bench of this Court, of which I was a member in L.P.A. 404 of 19711 Lachhman Singh and others v. Hem Singh and others, 1972 PunLJ 557 decided on August 3, 1972 : In view of these facts, I direct the Superintending Canal Officer to rehear the revision petition and he should find as to when the approved scheme was published under Section 30-C of the Act from which date the period of limitation started. Thereafter he shalt decide whether the revision filed before him was barred by time or not and whether any interference was called for. The writ petition is accepted in VIC above terms and the impugned order of the Superintending Canal Officer is quashed. In view of partial success, the parties are left to bear their own costs.