GURDIAL SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, SIRSA DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order of Superintending Canal Officer Annexure P-5. and Divisional Canal Officer Annexure P-4. Concededly the order of the Deputy Collector Annexure P-2 was rendered in favour of the petitioner against which respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before Divisional Canal Officer. Divisional Canal Officer having allowed the appeal of respondent No. 4, revision petition was preferred by the petitioner before Superintending Canal Officer, which has been dismissed vide Annexure P-5.

(2.) After hearing counsel for the parties we are of the view that the present petition deserves to be allowed at the stage of motion hearing without going into the merits of the case. Perusal of the order of the Deputy Collector shows that petitioner was party before him. It appears to us that respondent No. 4 did not implead the petitioner as respondent before Divisional Canal Officer and order has been reversed at the back of the petitioner. While recording the presence of the parties, only Amilal respondent No. 4 who is stated to have appeared in person has been recorded as respondent. The order does not show that petitioner was impleaded as respondent. It has been stated in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the petitioner was not served and had no knowledge of the proceedings. In reply thereto, respondent No. 4 has stated that petitioner was served through proclamation in the village. The factum of the petitioner having been served through proclamation also supports the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that he was not impleaded as respondent in appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer. It has specifically been taken as ground of revision before the Superintending Canal Officer that the petitioner was not summoned to attend the hearing although he was concerned with the case. This aspect of the matter has not been gone into even by the Superintending Canal Officer. In any case, once the petitioner was not impleaded as respondent before the Divisional Canal Officer, although he was successful before the lower authority, order of the Divisional Canal Officer has got to be set aside on the short ground that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard. Service through proclamation in these circumstances is of no avail as to respondent No. 4 as petitioner deserved to be impleaded in the appeal. Service through proclamation is primarily meant for those persons, who are likely to be affected by a particular decision but when a particular person was very much party before the lower authority, it was incumbent upon respondent No. 4 to specifically implead the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. This having not been not done, orders of the Divisional Canal Officer and Superintending Canal Officer are liable to be set aside on the ground that they have been passed at the back of the petitioner.