CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mehar Singh vs Dulla Singh and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 30 April 1962 · Citation: (1962) 04 P&H CK 0010

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.K. Mahajan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ No. 179 of 1961
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 380 words

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution and is directed against the order of the Superintending Engineer reversing his previous decision at the instance of the Chief Engineer. In order to appreciate the facts giving rise to this petition, it is necessary to set out the same in some detail.

2.

Mehar Singh petitioner owns Killa No. 739, Dulla Singh respondent owns Killa Nos. 729, 730 and 731. There was a watercourse AGH in existence, but in spite of this the Divisional Canal Officer directed that a fresh water course be constructed for Killa No. 731 from point K to H. Against this a representation was made by Mehar Singh to the Superintending Engineer who is the confirming authority. The Superintending Engineer directed that water to Killa No. 731 should be supplied through watercourse AGH. Against this order, a representation was made by Dulla Singh to the Chief Engineer, who reversed the decision of the Superintending Engineer and directed that the Superintending Engineer should confirm the decision of the Divisional Canal Office. This the Superintending Engineer later on did with the result that the new watercourse KH is to supply water to Killa No. 731. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed by Mehar Singh petitioner. His contention is that the Chief Engineer has no locus standi in the matter, the final authority on the subject being the Superintending Engineer.

3.

Nobody has come to oppose this petition. The respondents have been served. I have gone through the provisions of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, and I find that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. There is no appeal or revision provided to the Chief Engineer against the order of the Superintending Engineer. The order of the Divisional Canal Officer will only be operative after it is confirmed by the Superintending Engineer, and once there is an order of the Superintending Engineer, it becomes final. That being so this petition must be allowed. The order of the Superintending Engineer passed at the instance of the Chief Engineer is set aside and his original order allowing water to Killa No. 731 through watercourse AGH is restored. There will be no order as to costs.