S. Jaggar Singh vs Superintending Canal Officer Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiyana, and others

J. V. Gupta, J.

This writ petition is directed against the order of the Superintending Canal Officerrespondent No. 1, dated 18.8.1979, copy Annexure P5.

On the application of one Shri Khilu Singh proceedings were started for warabandi of Watercourse. The Deputy Collector vide its order dated 3.11.1977, copy annexure P2, decided the matter on some compromise. However respondents No. 4 and 5 in this writpetition filed an appeal against the said order before the Divisional Officer (Canal) Bhatinda. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 2231979. The matter was again taken up before the Superintending Canal Officer who vide order dated 1071978 modified the order of the Divisional Canal, Officer. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner Jaggar Singh filed Writ Petition No. 3993 of 1978 in this Court which was allowed and consequently the order dated 1071978 copy annexure P4, was quashed. It was directed that the revision petition filed by Shri Mit Singh should be decided in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The Superintending Canal Officer, after hearing both the parties, as directed by this Court, came to the conclusion:

"In view of these facts the decision of Divisional Canal Office Bhatinda Division, S. C. Bhatinda dated 22.3.1978 is not reasonable and is technically incorrect and is quashed under Section 68 (6) of Northern India Canal 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 share turn."

Learned counsel for the petitioner Jaggar Singh submitted that when the original order was passed by mutual consent, no appeal was competent and the same could not be altered. In support of this contention he referred to Sardara Singh and another v. The Superintending Canal Officer and others, 1972 PLJ 243, and Civil Writ Petition No. 2554 of 1965 Rup Chand and others v. State of Punjab and other) decided on 451966.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 submitted that there was no compromise as such and in any case, the petitioner was not a party thereto. No such objection was taken in the appeal filed before the Divisional Canal Officer or subsequently when the matter had gone back to the Superintending Canal Officer as directed by this Court. Even in the return filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it has been stated in para 5 that respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 which shows that they were not happy with the decision of respondent No. 3.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in this writ petition. There is no error, apparent in the judgment of the Superintending Canal Officer which has been passed on remand by this Court. No such objection was taken by the petitioner before the Superintending tending Canal Officer. Moreover, the petitioner was not a party to the said agreement as such. The impugned order has been passed on merits after hearing both the parties. It has been stated in the return filed on behalf of the Superintending Canal Officer in para No. 10(a) that at the time of agreement about the proposed warabandi, sometimes shareholders cannot understand and follow certain complex things which come to light at the later stage, and the aggrieved person can knock at the door of the competent authority to get his grievance redressed at later stage. The fixing of warabandi is ad hoc arrangement and can be altered by the competent authority on the application of an aggrieved person. In view to these facts the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no relevancy to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.