CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3283 OF 2006 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 31, 2009 Faqir Chand through his L.Rs and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. L.Batta, Sr.Advocate with Mr. M. K. Sajjan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3,8,9 and 13 to 25. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing of orders passed by Divisional Canal Officer and Superintending Canal Officer annexed with the petition as Annexures P-6 and P-9. The issue involved is concerning laying of a proposed minor along the road side. The petitioners opposed the same on the ground that it will block his access to the road. It is also pointed out CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3283 OF 2006 :{ 2 }: that the proposed New Dangar Khera Sub Minor crosses the main Abohar Fazilka road twice and accordingly the Government would be required to incur considerable amount for making bridges. The petitioners are the one who owned and possessed agricultural land in village Nihal Khera. They claim that their land has great commercial potential and market value and some of the petitioners have constructed shops abutting the main road. Their land is not being irrigated either from the existing New Mohindera Sub Minor or the present proposed New Dangar Khera Sub Minor. Some of the petitioners are also having an orchard, established long ago and in case the proposed minor is constructed, they are likely to lose their source of livelihood. Respondent No.3 along with some other persons, had in fact filed an application for clubbing outlet RD 10350/L and RD 13630/R of Danger Khera Minor and for providing New Dangar Khera Minor/outlet for irrigation of their lands. This was to be provided along Fazilka Abohar road. Respondent No.2 accordingly prepared a scheme under the Northern Canal and Drainage Act and issued notice on April 27, 2000. The petitioners filed objections. They pleaded that no new sub minor was needed and that co-sharers will suffer a loss which will be ruinous. After considering the objections and the application made by the respondents, Divisional Canal Officer sanctioned the new Dangar Khera Sub Minor from outlet 10630/R of Dangar Khera Minor. The petitioners would aver that while rejecting the numerous objections that they had raised orally or in writing, no reasons are assigned. While allowing this prayer, respondent No.2 also held that this order will be implemented after the approval of Chief Engineer CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3283 OF 2006 :{ 3 }: Canals, Punjab, Chandigarh or any change which he considers appropriate. This part of the order is stated to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the petitioners against this order was dismissed by the Superintending Canal Officer on 3.12.2002. Against this order, the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No.3348 of 2003. This Court set-aside order passed and impugned in the writ petition and remitted the matter to the Superintending Canal Officer to decide the appeal filed by the petitioners afresh. Superintending Canal Officer was directed to deal with the objections raised by the petitioners. The appeal filed by the petitioners was accordingly heard by the Superintending Canal Officer on 5.12.2005 and was dismissed. Grievance is that Superintending Canal Officer has again failed to assign any reason and, thus, has not complied with the directions passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3348 of 2003. This order is now impugned through the present writ petition on the grounds that the objections, which were raised, have not been considered. The Counsel representing the petitioners has mainly made a grievance against that part of order, whereby the Divisional Canal Officer has directed that the order will be implemented after the approval of Chief Engineer Canals, Punjab. These directions reads as under:- “This order will be implemented after the approval of Chief Engineer Canals, Punjab, Chandigarh, or any change which he considers appropriate.” Counsel contends that the above directions are without CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3283 OF 2006 :{ 4 }: jurisdiction and in support would refer to some of the judgments passed by this Court. Reference is made to Tara Singh Versus Mithu Singh and ors., 1987 RRR 158. In this case, it was observed by this Court that the Divisional Canal Officer has power to pass scheme and it would be illegal if the said officer passes any scheme after getting approval of the higher authorities. This judgment may not apply to the facts of this case. Counsel has placed before me an unreported judgment passed in Civil Writ Petition No.7536 of 2004 (Labh Singh and others Vs. The Chief Engineer and others), decided on 26.9.2005. In this case, Divisional Canal Officer had passed an order while exercising quasi-judicial functions. The order passed was such which required administrative sanction/approval by Chief Engineer. In view of some technical constrains, Chief Engineer, Canals, had ordered withholding of the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer as well as of Superintending Canal Officer in abeyance. This order was impugned in this writ petition. Noticing that the Divisional Canal Officer had passed a quasi-judicial order, which was interfered with on the administrative side, this Court observed that this aspect would fall within the ambit of indoor management of the respondents and the petitioners and partly impugning the order, would not ordinarily be bound by the same. It was further observed that if administration was aggrieved against the quasi-judicial order passed by Divisional Canal Officer against which the appeal was dismissed, they could challenge the orders by filing writ petition, which was not done. Finding that the order impugned was passed on the administrative side, it was held that this can not override the quasi-judicial order. This administrative order passed by the Chief CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3283 OF 2006 :{ 5 }: Engineer was accordingly quashed. It is on this basis, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the part of the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, making the order dependent upon approval by the Chief Engineer would be without jurisdiction. In view of the ratio of law laid down in Labh Singh's case (supra), it can be said that this part of the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer is more appropriately on the administrative side and could not have been made part of quasi-judicial order. This part of the order accordingly can not be sustained. The direction issued by the Divisional Canal Officer that the order would be implemented after approval of the Chief Engineer, as reproduced above, is accordingly quashed. The remaining part of the order, however, does not suffer from any infirmity. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. The order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners is well reasoned and apparently take care of the objections which had been raised by the petitioners. Accordingly, no case for interference in the impugned order otherwise is made out. The writ petition, thus, is partly allowed to the extent as observed and noted above. March 31, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3283 OF 2006 :{ 6 }: