ISHWAR DAYAL Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ishwar Dayal has filed this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 1st September, 1981 by which C.W.P. No. 1602 of 1979, filed by the appellant, was dismissed.

(2.) The only point urged before us by Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the Superintending Canal Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 22nd May, 1970 (Copy Annexure 'D' to the writ petition) as the scheme had been rejected by the Divisional Canal Officer vide his order dated 21st March, 1970 (Copy Annexure 'C' to the writ petition). In support of his contention reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dalip Singh Bhagwana v. Superintending Canal Officer, Rohtak, 1968 AIR(P&H) 526. A similar contention had been raised before the learned Single Judge, but the same did not find favour with him as is evident from the impugned judgment.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that this appeal deserves to be allowed. The appellant has been irrigating his land from Outlet No. R.D.-31735-R. As this mode of irrigation interfered with the irrigation of the land of the other right-holders, including respondents No. 3 and 4, a move was made by the respondents and other right-holders to shift the supply of canal water to Outlet No. R.D. - 34490-R. Initially, the Divisional Canal Officer approved the scheme. Feeling aggrieved from the order of Divisional Canal Officer approving the scheme, the appellant and one Tej Ram filed an appeal, which was heard by the Superintending Canal Officer and the following order was passed :-