PAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Rohtak, passed on 29th July, 1968, affirming the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit. Pat Ram plaintiff owns land situate in village Hassangarh which is irrigated from outlet No. 39338/R-RD Rohna minor. A warabandi was sanctioned for this village for the irrigation of fields from outlet No. 39338/R-RD by an order of the Divisional Canal Officer which bears the date of Ist May, 1965. According to this warabandi, Pat Ram plaintiff was last in his turn which gave him the benefit of having the 'Nikal' of water-course. It appears that Hari Ram alias Haria another rightholder was equally interested in having his turn last to get the additional benefit of the nikal. An order of the Chief Engineer purported to have been made by him at the instance of Haria in the exercise of his revisional powers under Section 68(6) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (Act No. VIII of 1873) (hereinafter called the Act), marked Exhibit P.2 is on the record. The revision petition of Haria was rejected. The revision was against the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, Delhi Division, but no particulars of the order against which the petition had been preferred are given by the Chief Engineer. It is indeed impossible to find out as to whether he was exercising his revisional power and agaisnt which order. All that is noticed is that the revision petition was rejected. It may be stated here that before sub-section (6) of Section 68 of the Act was amended by Section 16 of Punjab Act 23 of 1965, it was the Chief Engineer who could exercise the revisional powers. By the said amendment made in the year 1965, the Superintending Canal Officer could exercise the same powers instead of the Chief Engineer. There is also an order Exhibit P.3 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer on 3nd June, 1966, where Hari Ram is shown as an appellant and Pat Ram and Man Singh sons of Jhanda Ram as respondents. The order seems to have been passed on a review petition by Hari Ram who is described as an appellant. Again, this order does not make it clear as to which warabandi is being amended by the Superintending Canal Officer as a result whereof Pat Ram is now not given the last turn. The plaintiff was given his turn after one Kure. The plaintiff being aggrieved by this order filed the present suit in which it has been prayed that a decree be passed against the defendants respondents restraining them from interfering in the warabandi and his rights under it as finally sanctioned by the Chief Engineer in his order of 3rd May, 1965, Exhibit P.2. Among other pleas, one is that the Superintending Canal Officer, defendant No. 2, had not jurisdiction to review the earlier order Exhibit P.2 passed by the Chief Engineer exercising similar powers of revision under Section 68(6) of the Act. The defendants resisted the suit and in the written statement filed by respondents 1 and 2 it was specifically pleaded that the latest warabandi was actually of the date 20th March, 1966, meaning thereby that the Warabandi as fixed earlier by the order Exhibit P.1 was no longer operative. The jurisdiction of the civil Court was denied. The parties went to trial on the following issues :-

(2.) Issues No. (1) and (2) were disposed of together and it was held that civil Court had jurisdiction to examine cases where provisions of the Act have not been complied with and the special Tribunal constituted under the Act has not acted in accordance with the principles of judicial procedure. There was in fact no review of any order by the Superintending Canal Officer. Issue No. (3) was found against the defendants while issue No. (4) was decided in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the findings of the trial Court under issue Nos. (1) and (2), the suit was dismissed. An appeal was taken to the District Judge, Rohtak, who affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present second appeal.

(3.) It has been urged by Mr. U.D. Gour, learned Counsel for the plaintiff appellant that the Superintending Canal Officer had no jurisdiction to review the earlier order passed by the Chief Engineer on 3rd May, 1965, and that the defendants must, therefore, be restrained from acting upon the illegal and without jurisdiction order passed on review. I quite agree with him that it is not open to an authority exercising revisional powers under the Act to review his order on merits howsoever erroneous it may be and to do away with the normal procedure prescribed by Section 68 of the Act for settling a Warabandi or making any amendment thereto. It is for the Deputy Collector, if he finds necessary to do so, for the distribution of water from the water-course amongst persons in any estate or a group of estates, to pass necessary orders fixing turns of water. A right of appeal by an aggrieved party has been given to the Divisional Canal Officer, and the Superintending Canal Officer, within whose jurisdiction the water-course is situated, can suo motu or an application made in this behalf by an aggrieved person, revise an order passed in appeal by Divisional Canal Officer. Once the whole procedure is gone through and the matter has been finally settled by the Superintending Canal Officer as a quasi-judicial authority, there is no power left with him to review, on merits, his earlier orders. Whenever a necessity arises again to amend the Warabandi arrangement, the same procedure of Section 68 will have to be followed over again and orders passed afresh by the Deputy Collector after hearing objections of the interested persons.