CHANDGI RAM Vs. CHIEF CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE important questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal are whether sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Haryana Canal Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which requires that the Divisional Canal Officer, shall approve, modify or reject the scheme within 30 days of the time for the receipt of the objections and suggestions is mandatory or directory and whether his failure to do so would render his decision void?

(2.) THE appellants and other share-holders irrigate their lands from out-let RD 7,500-R Sherpur distributory. This land another out-let at RD-8620/r were temporary and were experimented to find out as to which is better for proper irrigation. Therefore, a scheme was prepared by the Divisional Canal Officer concerned (hereinafter referred to as D. C. O.) under Section 17 of the Act. The same was published in terms of Section 18 (1) of the Act inviting objections from the share-holders of outlets RD-7500-R and 820-R Sherpur distributory. The D. C. O. heard the objections of the share-holders on 28. 10. 1981, examined the plan, inspected the spot on 28. 7. 1982 and they passed order Annexure P-1 dated 25. 8. 1982. He sanctioned the outlet RD-7500-R and rejected the demand of certain share-holders for transfer of area from outlet RD-7500-R to outlet RD-8620-R. Aggrieved by this order the 5th respondent - Partap Sing filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer (hereinafter referred to as S. C. O.) who rejected the appeal on 24. 11. 1982 (Annexure P-2 ). The 4th respondent-Sis Ram, filed an appeal against the order of the S. C. O. before the Chief Canal Officer, who allowed the appeal vide Annexure P-3 and held that the outlet be fixed at RD-8620-R.

(3.) THE respondents on the other hand contended that the provision contained in Section 18 (2) is only directory and the non-compliance thereof will not render the scheme void.