BIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders of the Divisional Canal Officer, dated September 29, 1972, copy annexure 'B' and Superintending Canal Officer dated April 19, 1973 copy annexure 'C, passed under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioners are landowners in village Bhamma Baddi. Their land is situated on the tail of Budrukhan minor and is irrigated by the same. On the tail, there is no specified water outlet and the irrigation is done by cutting the bank of the tail as is done in the case of watercourses. The land of respondent 4 has been irrigated from the outlet at Burji No. 20000-L and 20000-R for the last 60 years. He made an application for shifting of his land from the aforesaid Burji to Burji No. 23997 which was allowed by the Divisional Canal Officer by his order dated September 29, 1972, copy annexure 'B'. The petitioners filed a revision petition against his order to the Superintending Canal Officer which was dismissed vide order dated April 18, 1973, copy annexure 'C'. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders of the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer on the ground that they are illegal, void and without jurisdiction. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the private respondents that incorrect allegations have been made in the petition in order to secure admission thereof and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground. He has referred to sub-paras (ii) and (iii) of para 5, wherein it is stated that the petitioners appeared before the Divisional Canal Officer on March 24, 1972 at Kothi Seron. Before the hearing began, the Divisional Canal Officer abused the petitioners and told them that respondent No. 4 must get irrigation from Burji No. 23997. The petitioners complained this behaviour of the Divisional Canal Officer to the Chief Engineer and the Government. The wife of the Divisional Canal Officer and his son named Paramjit Singh of respondent No. 4 were co-professors in the Akal Degree College at Mastuana in district Sangrur at that time. This is the reason for his above noted behaviour and after this incident of Kothi Seron, he gave this decision against the petitioners which is clearly mala fide. The allegations in the petition have been denied by Sh. Ragbbir Singh, Divisional Canal Officer, Sangrur, in the return. He has stated that he was at Patiala on March 24, 1972 in connection with the official work and as such the hearing was postponed to March 25, 1972, on which date the case was heard. A notice of motion was issued by the Motion Bench. The case was admitted after filing the return by the State. The return of Shri Ragbhir Singh, respondent No. 3 was before the Motion Bench at the time of admission. It appears from the aforesaid facts that the writ was not admitted on the ground of allegations of mala fides. No prejudice has been caused to the respondent by the aforesaid allegations of the petitioners. Consequently, I do not, find sufficient reasons for rejecting the writ petition on this ground.

(3.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioners has urged that the site plan showing the particulars of the land to be shifted and the names of the persons who were to be affected by the scheme, were not published along with the scheme. In the circumstances he submits that the publication of the scheme is not proper. He has referred to sub-section (2) of Section 30-A of the Act wherein it is provided that every scheme prepared under sub-section (1) shall, amongst other matters, set out the estimated cost thereof, the alignment of the proposed watercourse, as the case may be, the site of the outlet, the particulars of the shareholders to be benefited and the other persons who may be affected thereby, and a sketch plan of the area proposed to be covered by the scheme. He further referred to Section 30-B which says that every scheme shall, as soon as may be after its preparation be published in such forms and manner as may be prescribed by Rules made in this behalf inviting objections and suggestions with respect thereof within twenty-one days of the publication. Rule 2 as contained in Part III-A of the Government of the Punjab, Public Works Department Irrigation Branch Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) provides that all schemes prepared under Section 30-A of the Act shall be published for inviting objections and suggestions by affixing a copy thereof in a conspicuous place in the village or villages concerned, displaying inter alia the sketch plan. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents have not been affected in any way by non-publication of the sketch plan and the names of the persons who were to be benefited or adversely affected. He further states that the petitioners filed their objections which were correctly decided by the authorities concerned.