SAHI RAM Vs. SUPERINTENDENT CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was aggrieved by the orders passed by the authorities under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). He approached this Court through a writ petition. The learned single Judge having dismissed his petition, he has come up in the present appeal. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) According to the appellant, Panni Devi was a big land owner. He was a tenant on a part of the land belonging to Panni Devi. In the year 1960, he purchased land measuring 72 kanals 14 marlas. He thus became owner of the land. On 7/09/1987, Vinod Kumar son of Panni Devi made an application for the change of his turn of water. This application, it is averred, was allowed by the Deputy Collector vide order dated 23/09/1987. Another order was passed by the authority on 19/10/1987. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant filed an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer who by his order dated 3/12/1987 set aside the order of the Deputy Collector and remanded the case. The application was then disposed of by the Deputy Collector vide his order dated 13/05/1988. This order was challenged by the respondent, Vinod Kumar through an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer. Vide orders dated 16/01/1990, the appellate authority remanded the case 'to Deputy Collector with the direction that Wari (turn) be fixed according to civil record and Nakkas be fixed on "first come first serve basis" and the case be heard on 23-1-1990.' The matter came up before the Deputy Collector on different dates viz. 7/03/1990 and Mar 9/03/1990. Ultimately, the case was decided on 21/03/1990. Vinod Kumar, respondent No. 2 appeared as a special attorney of his nephew Devinder Kumar (respondent No. 3). His statement was recorded on 7/03/1990 when the case was adjourned to 9/03/1990 at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant. On 21/03/1990, the appellant did not appear in spite of the service of the notice and the case was decided. The Deputy Collector vide order dated 21/03/1990 held that the land of the appellant (Sahi Ram) 'comes first whereas the land of Devinder Kumar comes at the end. Keeping in view the circumstances, the Wari of respondent, Sahi Ram (the present appellant) on the existing Khal, his Nakka for taking water at 105/7-13 and for delivering water at 105/ 3-7 is approved. From here Shri Devinder Kumar son of Mool Dass after taking water will deliver water at the ............. In order to make up the above deficiency of Nikal cut, his Wari be kept in Nikal at serial No. 5. In order to compensate Sahi Ram 0.5 minutes Wari of Devinder Kumar be included in the Wari of Sahi Ram which is accordingly approved.' Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer. He upheld the order dated 21/03/1990 passed by the Deputy Collector. The appellant then challenged this order before the Superintendent Canal Officer. His petition having been dismissed vide order dated 29/01/1991, he approached this Court through a civil writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge.

(3.) Mr. Ravinder Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Devinder Kumar had not moved any application under S. 68 of the Act and, consequently, no order giving him any benefit could have been passed by the authorities. He has further contended that according to the finding recorded by the Deputy Collector vide his order dated 13/05/1988, the appellant was given his turn of water which he had been availing of since the year 1960 and there was no reason for the authorities to interfere with this order. The claim made on behalf of the appellant has been contested by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the action taken by the authorities was in strict conformity with law and calls for no interference.