RUP CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners and respondent 4 are right-holders of village Kachana, tehsil Kaithal, district Karnal. The Deputy Collector, Narwana (Irrigation) fixed a Naka (Warabandi) for irrigating the land of the petitioners and respondent 4. Against that order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer which was decided by him on 23rd April, 1965. According to the petitioners it was an agreed order. Against that order, respondent 4 filed a revision petition before the Chief Engineer and so did the petitioners. These revisions were heard by the Chief Engineer on 23rd July, 1965. The revision of respondent 4 was accepted while the revision of the petitioners was rejected. Against the order of the Chief Engineer, the petitioners filed Civil Writ No. 2554 of 1965 in this Court which was allowed by the Division Bench consisting of Mehar Singh and Grover, JJ. (as their Lordships then were) on 4th May, 1966. The learned Judges directed the Chief Engineer to rehear and redecide the revision petitions in accordance with law.

(2.) After remand, instead of the Chief Engineer hearing the revisions, the revision of respondent 4 was decided and accepted by the Superintending Engineer, Ambala Bhakra Canal Circle, Chandigarh, on 19th May, 1967 but no decision has been given on the revision petition of the petitioners. By this order, the Superintending Engineer set aside the order of the Divisional Canal Officer and restored that of the Deputy Collector. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for having that order quashed.

(3.) Various grounds have been mentioned in the writ petition challenging the validity of the impugned order of the Superintending Engineer but that order has to be set aside on a very short ground that according to the direction of the High Court the revision petitions of the petitioners and respondent 4 were to be decided by the Chief Engineer and not by the Superintending Engineer. It is stated by the learned counsel for the parties that under Section 68(6) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, the revision lay to the Chief Engineer, before it was amended by Punjab Act 23 of 1965, and thereafter to the Superintending Canal Officer as the words "Chief Engineer" were substituted by the words "Superintending Canal Officer" by the said Act. The revisions of the petitioners and respondent 4 which had been decided by the Chief Engineer on 23rd May, 1965 had been preferred before the amendment was made. The amendment is not retrospective but only prospective, that is, revisions against the orders of the Divisional Canal Officer are to be heard by the Superintending Engineer only if they are passed after the date of the amendment effected by Punjab Act 23 of 1965 and the revision petitions against the orders passed before the date of amendment are to be heard by the Chief Engineer. This amendment had been made before the Bench of this Court passed the order dated 4th May, 1966, directing the Chief Engineer to rehear and redecide the revision petitions. It was, therefore, the Chief Engineer alone who could decide those revision petitions. The Superintending Engineer had no jurisdiction to decide those revision petitions.