Hazari Lal vs Superintending Canal Officer

M.M. Punchhi, J. (Oral)

This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred to get quashed orders, Annexures P5 and P7 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer respectively. By virtue of those orders, the site of an outlet has been shifted. The petitioner bemoans that thereby irrigation facilities extended to him stand diminished.

The petitioners as also respondents Nos. 3 to 21 share irrigation facilities from the Lambi distributary. On this distributary, there was an outlet R.D. 198001R. In addition thereto, there was another outlet R.D. 190900R, presumably far upstream. Rightholder Ch. Rati Ram through Shiv Narain applied that some of his areas be excluded from the Chak of outlet R.D. 190900R and it may be included in the Chak of outlet R.D. 198000R. Yet, at the same time, prayer made was that outlet R.D. 198000R itself be shifted from its present location and be brought upstream. Accordingly, a scheme under section 30B of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 was prepared and ultimately confirmed without the least objection by the Divisional Canal officer on 9.5.1973 vide order, Annexure P2. The proposed areas were shifted to the outlet and the said outlet was shifted at R.D. 196240R.

The petitioner by appending Annexure P.1, the plan of the site, has shown thereon the site of R.D. 198000R as also the site of R.D. 196240R. The latter site of the outlet is situated within the land of the present petitioner Hazari Lal. The petitioner claims that he is a tenant of Shiv Narain, the original applicant for shifting of the outlet, and being a tenant entitled to purchase the area under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, had incurred his displeasure on the attempt being made. Thereupon, those landowners by putting up one Devi Lal, another sharer of Irrigation facilities applied for transfer of the outlet downstream to site of R.D. 196900R. This too has been shown in plan, Annexure P1. The Divisional Canal Officer vide his order dated 26.9.1975, Annexure P.5, allowed the prayer despite objection of the petitioner and without giving an opportunity of being heard to his counsel. The petitioner then filed revision petition before the Superintending Canal Officer. There, seemingly, he did not press the objection of the petitioner''s counsel being not heard, but otherwise, on merits, suggested that the order was working injustice to him. The Superintending Canal Officer vide his order dated 10.6.1976, Annexure P7 rejected the contention. He took the view that outlet fixed at R.D. 196240R immediately brought the water to a lower level and since the watercourse had to run along the main distributary for three acres length, that caused breaches in the watercourse and the same disturbed irrigation. The petitioner''s plea that levels at both the sites, i.e. at R.D. 196240R and R.D. 196900R in the main distributary were practically the same or even higher at the former site was rejected by the said officer because he was of the view that the levels did not justify the contention that the irrigation of the petitioner would in any way be affected.

The petitioner now challenging the aforesaid two orders has pressed two grounds : (i) that the order of the Divisional Canal Officer (which merged in the order of the Superintending Canal Officer) is in the nature of a review of his earlier order, Annexure P. 2, and which was not permissible under the law and (ii) the levels as disclosed in the report of the Overseers Annexure P.4 did not justify the shifting of the outlet downstream of R.D. 198000R.

The joint return filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is to the effect that the unanimous demand of the rightholders was conceded by the Divisional Canal Officer vide order Annexure P2. Now justification is pleaded that the said arrangement was to be changed in view of the practical difficulties arising in order to secure the best interests of irrigation. It has been averred therein that the area contiguous where outlet R.D. 196240R was fixed is at a lower level and where the outlet was sought to be shifted, the area thereat was at a higher level. Additionally, it has been pleaded that when the decision was implemented with regard to R.D. 196240R, the shareholders faced trouble in watering their fields as the intervening watercourse along the Lambi distributory from the site of the outlet got breached whenever water at the tail of the Chak was utilised. With regard to the fear of less irrigation by the petitioner if the site of the outlet was shifted, it was said that it was not based on any factual position. It was pleaded that the measure was to solve the water problem.

So far as the first question is concerned, if one has to answer the same in abstract, a quasijudicial authority has no power to review its earlier decision on merits unless the statute which created it confers such power. But if the nature of the functions of the quasijudicial authority is such that it has a recurring objective to achieve by keeping in view the exigencies of the situation, which arise from time to time, inherently that quasijudicial authority would, in a sense have the power of review. Strictly speaking, the said power would not be that of review in the legal sense but would be in the nature of uptodating its functions and objectives as enjoined by the statute. Now the foremost consideration before the Canal Authorities is better irrigation and the goal is towards best irrigation. If an attempt in one direction towards better irrigation has failed, there is no reason why another attempt towards better irrigation cannot be resorted to. I fail to see how the Divisional Canal Officer could not redress the grievances of the rightholders when they had complained to him that the shifting of the site of the outlet at R.D. 196240R was unsatisfactory and working to their detriment. And even otherwise in the instant case, I find even there is no review involved for the site of the outlet was not restored to its original place i.e. at R.D. 198000R. Thus, in substance, it means that the outlet was shifted from one to another place and from another to still another place. Neither on principle nor on common sense, can such a measure be called a review. Thus, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is repelled.

Now with regard to the second contention that the new measure has worked to the detriment of the petitioner, this Court normally will not go into such a question and the decision in that regard would have to be left with the authorities of the Canal Department. They being technical people and fully wellversed with the situation at the spot, are better judges in that domain. This Court is not a Court of appeal to sit in judgment over their reasoning. Besides that, it is even ex facie patent that the changed site too is within the holding of the petitioner and he still remains the first on the outlet to receive irrigation. There seems to be no case of injustice to the petitioner. The impugned orders are clearly within the jurisdiction of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and are apparently quite just.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the petition which fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.