Jaggar Singh vs Superintending Canal Officer

G.S. Singhvi, J.—Feeling dissatisfied by the dismissal of the writ petition, Jaggar Singh has filed this appeal under Clause X of the Letter Patent and has prayed that the order of the learned Single Judge be set aside and the writ petition filed by him be accepted.

It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail because they have been extensively taken note of by the Superintending Canal Officer while deciding the revision petition filed by Mit Singh and Bagga Singh. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of some of the facts which have got bearing on the question whether the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record requiring High Court''s interference in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction.

Although, the learned Single Judge has not referred to the limitations which must be kept in view by the High Court while dealing with the orders passed by quasi judicial authorities and tribunals, we deem it proper to take notice of the same from the decision of the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others, . The principle laid down by the Apex Court is that the High Court will not correct an error of fact by issuing a writ of certiorari. Even an error of law which is not apparent on the face of the record is not liable to be corrected in exercise of that jurisdiction. It is also one of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court that the mere possibility of the High Court forming a different opinion on a re-appreciation of the entire material placed on its record, cannot be a ground to upset the order passed by the competent authority.

What has happened in the present case is that on an application filed by Khilu Singh, proceedings were initiated for warabandi of water course. The Deputy Collector disposed of the application by an order dated 3.11.1977 on the basis of some compromise arrived at between the applicant and the contesting parties. Mit Singh and Bagga Singh felt aggrieved by the arrangement made by the Deputy Collector and they filed appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, Bhatinda who upheld the order passed by the Deputy Collector. The Superintending Canal Officer before whom revision petition was filed by Mit Singh and Bagga Singh modified the order of the Divisional Canal Officer. However, on a writ petition filed by Jaggar Singh (CWP 3993 of 1978), this court quashed the order dated 10.7.1978 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer and remitted the matter back to the said authority for fresh decision. After hearing the parties, the Superintending Canal Officer passed the impugned order dated 18.8.1979 and issued the following direction: -

"It is a set principle of warabandi that a shareholder at the tail end of a water course is placed at Nikal provided full deduction of Nikal is possible from him, otherwise normally wari of next higher up shareholder is treated "Composite Shareturn" with that of the shareholder at the tail in the case he agrees to the same. In case of his disagreement, the next share-holder alone is placed at Nikal if full deduction of Nikal is possible for his shareturn and so on.

In this case full deduction of Nikal is not possible from the respondent Jaggar Singh who is at the tail end of the water course.

As Such he alone cannot be kept at Nikal. Next higher up shareholder is appellant Mit Singh who is not willing for treating his wari "Composite shareturn" with that of respondent Jaggar Singh. Full deduction of Nikal from his (appellant''s) shareturn is however, possible. In view of these facts the decision of Divisional Canal Officer, Bhatinda Division S.C. Bhkinda, dated 23.3.1978 is not reasonable and is technically incorrect and is quashed u/s 68(6) of Northern India and Drainage Act VIII of 1873 as amended. The appellant, Shri Mit Singh should be allowed Nikal as deduction of Nikal period is not possible from the respondent Shri Jaggar Singh, his total wari period being less than Nikal deduction period and parties do not agree to have composite shareturn."

The learned Single Judge has, on a consideration of the matter, opined that the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer does\\not suffer from an error of law.

Although the learned counsel for the appellant has not appeared to support the case set up by the appellant, we have gone through the entire record with the assistance of the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the Superintending Canal Officer had not committed any illegality warranting interference by the High Court. The issue as to what benefit should be given to a particular shareholder keeping in view the availability of the water is technical in nature and the opinion expressed by the competent authority does not require interference by the High Court unless it is shown that the order passed by the competent authority is palpably erroneous and manifest injustice has been caused to the petitioner. Since the appellant has failed to prove that the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer is palpably erroneous, we do not see any reason to disturb the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.