HARDAM SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order, dated 27th February, 1996 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Sir-hind Canal Circle, Ludhiana.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that an application under Section 68 (2) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1973 (herein after referred to as the Act) was filed by the respondent No. 3 along with certain other persons. This application was allowed by the Deputy Collector, Bhatinda, vide order dated 7th March, 1989. The order of the Deputy Collector, Bhatinda was challenged by the petitioner and some other persons. The appeal filed by the petitioner and others was allowed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Bhatinda vide his order dated 20th April, 1989 copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-1 ). Thereafter respondent No. 2 filed fresh application under Section 68 (1) of the Act somewhere in January, 1994 on the ground that he has separated from his brother and the land had given divided equally between two brothers. It was prayed that the turn of the two brothers should be separated and his turn should be kept at the head moga and the turn of his brother be kept of Khata No. 27. This application was opposed by the petitioner. The Deputy Controller vide his order dated Ist February 1994 (Annexure P-2) rejected the prayer of respondent No. 3. Aggrieved by this order the respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, Bhatinda who by his order dated 16th November, 1995, accepted the appeal of the respondent No. 3. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 23rd November 1995 and copy of the grounds of appeal is annexed as Annexure P-5. In the appeal, it was specifically alleged that on the same facts previously one application was filed by Hakam Singh and others (including Balvinder Singh who is the son of Hakam Singh) and that was decided by the then Divisional Canal Officer under Section 68 (5) of the Act vide his order, dated 20th April, 1989 and so respondent No. 3 (Balwinder Singh) had got no right to file another application for the change of Waravandi. This appeal was rejected by the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle vide his order dated 27th February, 1996 copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-6. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(3.) MR . Sidhu learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5, however, contended that the order of the Collector dated 20. 4. 1989 fixing Warabandi has not become final for all times to come. He, however, submitted that since the land has been separated by respondent No. 3 from his brother and in view of the change of the circumstances, the order dated 16th November, 1995 (Annexure P-3) was passed by the Divisional Canal Officer which was upheld vide order dated 27th February, 1996 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Superintendent Canal Officer. In support of his contention he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Gulzar Singh and Ors. v. Sadhu Singh and Ors. , (1973)75 P. L. R. 450.