PURAN SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 16th January, 1987 (Annexure P.4) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozpur, whereby he disposed of the revision application against the decision of D.C.O. Abohar Division dated 12th June, 1986 regarding warabandi of outlet RD 35467-TF of Midda Minor under section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act of 1873. By the said order the Superintending Canal Officer purported to decide the dispute between the parties in respect of the use of watercourse with their consent.

(2.) In the writ petition the petitioners denied that they had ever agreed to the direction given by the Superintending Canal Officer in his order dated 16th January, 1987. Shri S.S. Grewal, D.C.O., Abohar, has filed a written statement on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. In paragraph 10 of the written statement he has taken up the stand that no injury or loss would be suffered by the petitioners as both the parties had agreed to the said order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer. This averment made in paragraph 10 of the written statement has been verified as true and correct to the best of the knowledge and belief of the deponent. This verification made by using the words "to the best of my knowledge and belief" is absolutely meaningless. Obviously, the Divisional Canan Officer could not have any personal knowledge about what had transpired before the Superintending Canal Officer. Respondent No. 4 has also appeared before us and has filed a written statement. All that he has stated in the written statement in this regard is that the impugned order was passed in the presence of the parties. He does not deny the averment made in the writ petition to the effect that the petitioners had agreed to the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer.

(3.) In view of what has been stated above, we are inclined to accept the petitioners' case that they had never given their consent for the impugned order. An order made on the basis of a non-existing consent cannot be sustained.