Kanhiya Lal and others vs Superintending Canal Officer and others

P.C. Pandit, J.—This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by Kanahya Lal and three others, landowners in village Kheri Sampla. District Rohtak, challenging the legality of the order dated 27th of February, 1966. passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Western Jumna Canal, West Circle, Rohtak, respondent No. 1.

According to the petitioners, Warabandi in their village was fixed by the Deputy Collector, Rohtak, on 24th of November, 1964. The said Officer prepared a scheme according to which every landowner was to be given Nakka at his major portion. This scheme superseded an earlier one dated 5th of July, 1957, and it was agreed to by all the landowners of the village. Ranjit and another landowner of the village respondent No. 3, went in appeal against the order of the Deputy Collector to the Divisional Canal Officer, who rejected the same on 3rd of May, l965. Thereafter respondent No. 3 filed a revision petition before the Superintending Canal Officer, who allowed it by means of the impugned order dated 27th of February, 1966. That led to the filing of the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners raised two objections before me. In the first place, he submitted that the learned Superintending Canal Officer was under the impression that he was hearing an appeal and not a revision against the order of the Divisional Canal Officer and that fact would be apparent from his order itself. At any rate, he had no authority to pass the impugned order unless he came to the conclusion that the Divisional Canal Officer had in any way exceeded his jurisdiction in making it.

Secondly, it was contended that, in any case, the Superintending Canal Officer had not given any reason for reversing the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer by which the latter had confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector.

As regards the first contention, there is no merit in the same. It is true that in his order the Superintending Canal Officer had described the proceedings before him as an appeal, but that seemed to be due to an oversight, because in the heading it had been clearly mentioned that it was a revision petition u/s 68 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter called the Act). The revision, in the instant case, had undoubtedly been filed under sub-section (vi) of section 68 of the Act. According to that sub-section, the Superintending Canal Officer could suo motu or on an application made in that behalf by an aggrieved person revise an order passed in appeal by a Divisional Canal Officer under sub-section (v) of section 68. The powers conferred on the Superintending Canal Officer under sub-section (vi) are very wide and he could thereunder revise any order passed in appeal by a Divisional Canal Officer. The language employed in the sub-section does not refer to any restrictions on the exercise of such power and nor has it been stated therein that it is only under certain specific circumstances that the revisional power can be exercised by the Superintending Canal Officer. Under this sub-section, the said Officer can re-examine or reconsider the whole case and then pass suitable orders. While doing so, it is understood that if he was reversing the order of a subordinate officer, he would give some valid reason for taking that action. In other words, he cannot set aside the order under revision in an arbitrary manner or on whimsical grounds.

In the instant case, the impugned order was gone through with the help of the counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel could not point out the reason on which the said officer was reversing the orders of the Divisional Canal Officer or the Deputy Collector. There is thus merit in the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Counsel for the parties agreed that the impugned order be set aside and a direction be issued to the Superintending Canal Officer to re-hear the parties and pass a suitable order keeping in view the observations made above.

I would, therefore, accept this petition, quash the impugned order and send the case back to the Superintending Canal Officer for re-decision as stated above. There will, however, be no order as to costs.