LAWS(P&H)-1983-8-143

JAGRUP SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

Decided On August 05, 1983
JAGRUP SINGH Appellant
V/S
SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jagrup Singh has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing order dated July 26, 1976, of the Superintending Canal Officer (a copy of which is Annexure P-2, appended to the petition) whereby he allowed the appeal of Budh Singh, respondent No. 3 and sanctioned a water course through the land of the petitioner. It has been filed in the following circumstances :

(2.) Mr, Sarjit Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vigorously argued that no scheme was prepared in this case. This argument cannot be accepted. In his reply, the Divisional Canal Officer has specifically stated that a scheme was prepared and he has given the details regarding that. It was proposed that water course AXYZOF should be sanctioned instead of water course ACDEF. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mehorana, also recommended that this scheme should be sanctioned. In view of this categorical stand of Divisional Canal Officer, the allegations of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

(3.) Mr. Sarjit Singh then contended that Budh Singh was not aggrieved by the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, because the Divisional Canal Officer had rejected the scheme allegedly prepared on the application of Maghar Singh. Budh Singh had not filed any application for the change of water course or the framing of the scheme. So, if the scheme was rejected, the position of Budh Singh did not in any way worsen by the order of rejection of scheme by the Divisional Canal Officer. So, he was not aggrieved by this order and under sub-section (1) of Section 30-B of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (for short 'the Act') only a person who was aggrieved by the approval, modification or rejection of the scheme may within a period of 30 days from the publication of the scheme file a revision before the Superintending Canal Officer. He has sought to buttress this argument by referring to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sohan Singh v. Shri Surjit Singh Sodhi, Commissioner Patiala Division, Patiala,1973 PunLJ 71.