RAM RIKH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer (Annexure A) in the purported exercise of power under sub -section (3) of section 30 -B of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (hereinafter called the Act.)

(2.) THE petitioner Ram Rikh shared the use of the outlet RD 19500 from Sukhchain Distributary along with respondents 4 and 5, Birbal and Parbhu -Birbal, the fourth respondent, wanted some change in the alignment of the watercourse and moved the Divisional Canal Officer for that purpose in the year 1966. A scheme was published in accordance with the provisions of section 30 -A of the Act and after hearing the parties the Divisional Canal Officer did not accede to the request of Birbal that the alignment should pass through the fields of the petitioner, and the fifth respondent. The Superintending Canal Officer, in the exercise of his revisional powers, however, granted him the relief he had sought. The petitioner feeling aggrieved has moved this Court in certiorari proceedings.

(3.) NOR can I accede to the submission of Mr. Puri that the power of interference by the Superintending Canal Officer can be spelled out from the provisions of section 30 -F of the Act which says that: