UMARAM Vs. REVENUE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UMARAM , an unsuccessful petitioner, has filed this special appeal against the judgment of single Judge of this Court by which his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer of writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 2 -1 -73 and 13 -6 -74 of the Executive Engineer, Gang Canal South Division, Sriganganagar aid the order dated 2 -3 -68 of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, passed in and reference made to it under Section 27 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act' hereafter was dismissed.

(2.) IN this appeal, the only point argued by Mr. Parekh, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the impugned orders in relation to the alteration in the water channel after an identical prayer for this alteration having been rejected earlier by the competent authorities under the Act was passed in judicial proceedings and in any case was of quasi judicial nature determining the rights of the parties and, therefore, since the above Act provides no provision for review, it was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed on that ground alone That being so, it was argued that the learned single Judge was cot justified in treating as a mere administrative order under Section 22 of the Act and further holding that it was permissible for the authorities under the Act to alter, vary, amend, rescind and review their orders for the alteration of the water -course either by fresh construction in the land of the Murabba holder or by altering it in a manner wherein his land is unwillingly taken possession of by the State to give benefit to his neighbours or other persons.

(3.) THEN come the impugned orders which were passed on a fresh implication supported by deposit of Rs. 600/ - on account of compensation to he paid to Umaram and others. The same prayer was accepted on the ground that it was necessary in the interest of irrigation. The recommendation dated 2 -2 -73 of the Executive Engineer was considered by the Additional Collector, Sriganganagar on 11 -3 -74 who remanded the case back to the Evecutive Engineer for site -inspection and preparation of level charts which was done on 8 -5 -74 and which resulted in the refraining of the earlier recommendation by order dated 13 -6 -74. The Addl Collector then refused to accept the recommendation on the ground that the Executive Engineer has rejected it earlier. Confronted with the above situation, the Executive Engineer made a reference to the Revenue Appellate Authority under Section 12 of the Act and the same was accepted on 2 -3 -78 and the construction of the water channel as mentioned above, was ordered. Section 27 of the Act is as under.