Raminder Kumar vs Superintending Canal Officer etc.

Sat Pal, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and in this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for review or recall of order dated 29.7.1997 passed by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (V.S. Aggarwal, J.) is party, in C.W.P. No. 17715 of 1995 (Raj Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer and others).

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Raj Singh (respondent No. 3 herein) approached the Divisional Canal Officer for restoring water course which according to him had been demolished by Nachhattar Singh who is the brother of the petitioners and is respondent No. 4 in this writ petition. On the basis of the report of Ziledar, Divisional Canal Officer restored the said water course. Nachhattar Singh preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Superintending Canal Officer. On review petition filed by Nirmal Singh who is also brother of the petitioner and is respondent No. 5 in this writ petition, the Superintending Canal Officer reviewed his order and remanded the case of Divisional Canal Officer. The said order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer reviewing his earlier order was challenged by Raj Singh in C.W.P. No. 17715 of 1995. In this writ petition, Raj Singh had impleaded both Nachhattar Singh and Nirmal Singh (brothers of the petitioner) as respondents. This writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 29th July, 1997 as stated hereinabove. In this order, it was held by the Division Bench that the Superintending Canal Officer had decided the appeal on merits by observing that water course ''XY'' was old running water course and petitioner Raj Singh had been irrigating his fields from this water course and as such there was no occasion for the Superintending Canal Officer to review his own order.

Mr. Harbhawan Singh, leanred senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who was the coowner of land comprising in rectangle No. 36 Killa No. 10 along with his brother is affected party but Raj Singh petitioner in CWP No. 17715/95 deliberately did not make the petitioner as respondent though his name figured as cosharer in all the revenue records as owner in possession of the land from which the water course was to pass. He, therefore, contended that the order dated 29th July, 1997 passed by the Division Bench in CWP No. 17715/95 be recalled and the case be remanded to the Divisional Canal Officer.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the records. Even as per the case of the petitioner, he is a cosharer of the land along with his brothers namely Nachhattar Singh and Nirmal Singh. It is not disputed that said Nirmal Singh and Nachhattar Singh were respondents in CWP No. 17715/95. There is not even an averment in the writ petition that petitioner Kuldip Singh was in exclusive possession of the land which he claims to be the co owner along with Nachhattar Singh and Nirmal Singh. Since the other coowners who are in joint possession with the petitioner were parties in C.W.P. No. 17715 of 1995, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same point in this writ petition which has already been adjudicated in the earlier writ petition. Even otherwise, we fully agree with the observation made in the order dated 29th July, 1997 that there was no occasion for the Superintending Canal Officer to review his own order when in the earlier order, it was clearly stated that the water course ''XY'' was an old running water course and Raj Singh had been irrigating his fields from this water course.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine.