GURUDEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts which have given rise to this appeal lie in a very narrow compass. The appellant's land bearing square No. 66/29 was in the first instance included in chak No. 5 PPA. On December 4, 1970 the appellant submitted an application to the Divisional Irrigation Officer, namely, the Executive Engineer Irrigation, South Gang Canal, Sriganganagar, praying that the appellant's land be transferred from Chak No. 5 PPA to Chak No. 4 PP, as the land was situated at a higher level and it was not possible to irrigate the entire land because it lay at the tail end of Chak No. 5 PPA. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation made a recommendation to the Superintending Engineer for transfer of the land of appellant from Chak No. 5 PPA to Chak No. 4 PP and the Superintending Engineer, accepting the recomendation made by the Executive Engineer, passed an order on February 4, 1971 directing the transfer of the appellant's land to Chak 4PP. A revision petition was filed before the Additional Chief Engineer, Irrigation who by his order dated July 22, 1972 set aside the order passed by the Superintending Engineer, Bikaner transferring the appellants land from Chak 5 PPPA to chak 4 PP and restoring the status quo as existed before December 4, 1970.

(2.) THE appellant felt aggrieved against the order passed by the Additional Chief Engineer dated July 22, 1972 and a filed a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on August 11, 1978. In this appeal, it was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Additional Chief Engineer had no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Superintending Engineer in respect of the transfer of the appellant's land from Chak 5 PPA to Chak 4 PP. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Addl. Chief Engineer passed the impugned order dated July 22, 1971 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. On the question of jurisdiction, the reply of the respondents is that the Chief Engineer exercised a supervisory control over all the officers appointed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954. As regards the question of affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing, the respondents' reply is evasive and it has been stated that the appellant were aware of the fact that a revision petition was filed in the matter and that he was also aware of the proceedings before the Additional Chief Engineer and also about the order passed by the Additional Chief Engineer. However, it has not been pleaded by the respondents that an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant, much less to say that the appellant was actually heard in the matter by the Additional Chief Engineer, before he proceeded to pass the order dated July 22, 1972.

(3.) IN the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated August 11, 1978 and quash the order passed by the Additional Chief Engineer Irrigation, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated July 22, 1972 and direct that the Additional Chief Engineer or the Chief Engineer, Irrigation may hear the revision petition afresh affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing and decide the same in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made above. The parties are left to bear their own costs.