GOBIND SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gobind Singh and Gurdial Singh have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the orders of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Annexures 'A' and 'B').

(2.) It is alleged that the petitioners who are the landowners of village Tahlian, Tehsil Mansa, District Bhatinda have been getting water for irrigation from Tahlian Jorian minor of Sirhind Canal. During the consolidation proceedings, some provision was made in the scheme for the watercourse from outlet No. RD-4790-R for the supply of the irrigation water to the petitioners and the other right-holders of village Tahlian. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, along with other landowners of village Mandali moved the Irrigation Department for the removing of the watercourse provided in the consolidation proceedings from its present location to a new alignment for watercourse from outlet No. 4790-R. It is alleged that this new scheme of watercourse was not published in accordance with rule 2 of the Rules framed under Sections 30-A to 30-G of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On coming to know about the proceedings before respondent No. 2, some of the right-holders of village Tahlian attended the hearing on 22nd September, 1967, and raised objections on which respondent No. 2 did not decide the case on that date and adjourned it for site inspection on some other date to be communicated later on. Thereafter, no notice was received from respondent No. 2 and on the 26th October, 1967, order Annexure 'A', was passed. The petitioners or other right-holders of village Tahlian were not informed of this order nor was this order published as required under rule 2 of the Rules, and the petitioners came to know of this order only when the Ziledar asked the landowners to construct a new watercourse and told that irrigation from outlet R.D 4790-R would stop through the previous watercourse. The petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No. 1 which was within time from the date of the knowledge of the petitioners but respondent No. 1 by his order dated 1st April, 1968, Annexure 'B' dismissed the appeal as time-barred. It is this order that has been challenged, being illegal, on the grounds as mentioned in the petition.

(3.) In the return filed on behalf of the Divisional Canal Officer, the material allegations in the petition have been denied. It has been further averred that the petitioner had full knowledge of the order dated 26th October, 1967 and the limitation period would start from the date of announcement of the decision, that is, 26th October, 1967.