TARA SINGH Vs. MITHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first respondent, Mithu Singh, resident of village Lal Bai, was keen in having 61 Kanals 8 Marlas of his land transferred from Mogha Burji RD 9236/R Rajwaha Lal Bai to RD 14828/RB Rajwaha Lal Bai. For the said purpose, it appears, he applied to the Divisional Canal Officer of the area concerned, for framing a scheme under Section 30 A the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act The Divisional Canal Officer framed a proposal and seemingly sent it to the Superintending Engineer, Sirhing Canal Circle, for approval. The Superintending Engineer, in turn, vide his letter dated 5th October, 1982, sent the proposal for approval to the Chief Engineer, Punjab Chandigarh. The Chief Engineer vide order Annexure P-5 on 3rd May, 1983, accorded approval. The matter then, through proper channel, went back to the Divisional Canal Officer. He then vide order date 5th July, 1984, Annexure R-1, passed a scheme in presence of the parties, whereby he ordered the change sought for.

(2.) However, before waiting of that event, Mithu Singh asked for fixation of his turn of water on the new outlet, assured on the strength of the approval accorded by the Chief Engineer to the passing of the scheme which yet awaited regular passing. The Deputy Collector, Bhatinda, in that event on 3rd January, 1984, vide order Annexure P-1 fixed his turn of water on the new outlet. The aggrieved party, Tara Singh and others (amongst whom Tara Singh of village Gidderbaha is the sole writ petitioner) filed an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, who dismissed the same on 28th August, 1983, again on the strength that the sanction of amendment of scheme under Section 30-A had arrived from the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department Tara Singh and others then filed a revision petition before the Superintending Canal Officer. Since the scheme under Section 30-A had in the meantime been sanctioned vide order, Annexure R-1, Tara singh, and others, also filed an appeal against such sanction before the Superintending Canal Officer. Both these matters were disposed of on the same date by separate orders Annexure P-3 and P-3/A. The appeal against the scheme was dismissed. Sequely, the appeal against warabandi too was dismissed. Challenging the aforesaid two orders, Tara Singh is in writ petition before this Court.

(3.) Though a number of grounds had been taken to quash the impugned orders, the one most striking is that the Divisional Canal Officer passed the scheme after having sought approval from the Superintending Engineer (Superintending Canal Officer) and the Chief Engineer and thereby caused a fectation to his quasi judicial functions and further even before confirmation of the scheme at his end put into effect the warabandi. Learned counsel for the respondents when confronted with this situation have nothing to urge and all what is said is that the Divisional Canal Officer had only acted with pure motives, for the proposal mooted before him in the matter of the draft scheme was better to have been approved before hand by the Superintending Canal Officer to whom his order in any case was appealable. As it seems to me, this argument would not hold good. No officer on the original side, can seek approval of his proposed orders from a superior appellate or revisional officer. Learned counsel for the respondents in this situation candidly conceded that the impugned orders in both these matters need not sustain, and that the demand of Mithu Singh to have his area transferred to outlet RD 14828/RB Lal Bai Distributary, should be examined afresh, by the Divisional Canal Officer, uninfluenced by any approval given to the proposal by the Superintending Canal Officer and the Chief Engineer. On this concession, the impugned orders Annexure P-2, P-3/A, P-5 and Annexure R-1 are quashed, leaving it open to the Divisional Canal Officers, to deal with the matter afresh, uninfluenced by the approvals of the superior officers, as mentioned earlier. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.