Sube Singh and others vs Superintending Engineer and others

A.S. Bains, J.

Petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 12 are the residents of Village Pilana, Tehsil and District Rohtak. Their lands are irrigated by ''Bond Distributary'' through outlets R.D. 58150L and R.D. 56500L. On the application of the petitioners, who are 94 in number, the Divisional Canal Officer, Rohtak Division, Western Jamuna Canal, Rohtak (respondent No.2), after examining the whole case prepared a scheme under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and after hearing the rightholders approved the same vide his order dated 30th January, 1973. Copy of his orders is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P.1.

Capt. Jugti Ram, respondent No. 3 and others, filed a revision petition before the Superintending Canal Officer, Western Jamuna Canal, West Circle, Rohtak, against the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, which was allowed and the case was remanded to the Divisional Canal Officer for redecision with the direction that a lift outlet may be separately given for the lift area at R.D. 56500L Bond Distributary.

The Divisional Canal Officer instead of complying with the directions of the Superintending Canal Officer, Rohtak, passed orders approving the original scheme as approved by his predecessor vide his order dated 28th February, 1974. It was observed by the Divisional Canal Officer that there was no space for providing separate bund watercourse for flow area. Copy of his order is annexed with the petition as Annexure P.3

It is alleged in the petition that in the meantime the area of the petitioners was withdrawn from Western Jamuna Canal, West Circle, Rohtak and the same was included in the newlycreated Bhiwani Irrigation Circle and that the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhiwani Irrigation Circle, Bhiwani heard the parties on 3rd June, 1974, and made the order of the Divisional Canal Officer final his vide order dated 5th June, 1974. Copy of the order of the Superintending Canal Officer is annexed with the petition as Annexure P.4.

Capt. Jugti Ram, respondent No. 3 and others filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhiwani on 24th June, 1974, which was allowed. Copy of his order dated 29th July, 1974, is annexed with the petition as Annexure P5. It is this order of the Superintending Canal Officer P5 which is challenged by way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The only point urged by Mr. J.S. Malik, counsel for the petitioners, is that the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhiwani, had no powers to review his own orders under the Act. I find merit in this contention. Under the Act the Superintending Canal Officer has no power to review his earlier orders. Admittedly, the Superintending Canal Officer had confirmed the order of the Divisional Canal Officer vide his order Annexure P.4. Thus, the subsequent order of the Superintending Canal Officer (Annexure P5) amounts to review, which on the face of it is illegal and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is quashed.

In the result the petition succeeds but there will be no order as to costs. Petition accepted.