JHANDA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide notification dated May 29, 1964; the State of Punjab invested the Collectors of certain districts with the powers of the Canal Officers. The material portion of the notification reads as under :-

(2.) The notification Annexure 'C' is of course somewhat unhappily worded and is capable of being interpreted as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In my considered opinion, it is a fit case in which this notification deserves to be clarified so that it becomes immune to challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution. In Tirath Singh v. Bachhitar Singh and others, 1955 AIR(SC) 830 it was observed as under :-

(3.) It appears that the State Government invested the District Collectors with the powers of the Divisional Canal Officers only. It was never their intention to invest them with the powers of the Superintending Canal Officers also. In Roop Chand v. State of Punjab and another, 1963 AIR(SC) 1503it has been authoritatively settled by the highest Court of the land that the same authority cannot be invested with original and appellate powers. The State Government is presumed to be aware of this pronouncement of law, and when it mentioned the words "Canal Officers" in the impugned notification it really meant that the powers of the Divisional Canal Officers should only be invested in the District Collectors I, therefore, hold that the District Collector, Sangrur exercised the powers of the Divisional Canal Officer only under the impugned notification and the order passed by him is revisable by the Superintending Canal Officer. It is, therefore, ordered that the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer would be deemed to have been passed today for the purposes of the limitation provided for filing an appeal. In the face of this finding, the other pleas on merits cannot be entertained by me at this stage and to that extent the petition is infructuous.