BASANT SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Superintendent Canal Officer of April 2, 1976 (Annexure P.2) on the ground that no appeal was competent under the relevant provisions of Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the impugned order was consequently void.

(2.) A scheme for irrigation had been prepared under section 30-A of the Act. The Divisional Canal Officer after considering the objections raised with regard thereto rejected it by his order of January 20, 1976 (Annexure P1). On appeal the Superintending Canal Officer by his impugned order set aside the order of the Divisional Canal Officer and approved the scheme referred to above.

(3.) It was the contention of Mr. J.R. Mittal, counsel for the petitioner that while the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 30-B of the Act no doubt provided for an appeal to the Superintending Canal Officer, this right conferred upon the petitioner was not one which could be exercised as the period prescribed for the filing of such an appeal was 30 days from the date of the publication of the rejection of the scheme under section 30-C of the Act. The argument being that as there was no provision in section 30-C of the Act for the publication of the scheme which had been rejected under section 30-B of the Act, no appeal could be filed. A reference to the relevant provision of the Act as it now stands would show that the proviso to section 30-C of the Act which was incorporated in the Act much earlier than the orders passed in this case, clearly provides for the publication of even a rejected scheme. No ground thus survives to question the maintainability of the appeal or the jurisdiction of the Superintending Canal Officer to deal with it. Mr. J.R. Mittal next sought to contend that the impugned order could not be sustained for the reason that it did not specifically meet and repel all the reasons set out by the Divisional Canal Officer in rejecting the scheme. The argument being that in the absence thereof the order of the Superintending Canal Officer could not be said to be a speaking order. Particular emphasis was here placed upon the ratio of irrigation of the land concerned adverted to by the Divisional Canal Officer in his order. The authority upon which this contention was founded upon was Bhajan Singh and others v. Superintending Canal Officer and others, 1970 PunLJ 1. After stating the contentions of the appellant the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer was in the following terms :-