C.W.P. No.12450 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.12450 of 1992 Date of Decision : 21.04.2011 Subhash Chander …Petitioner Versus Deputy Collector and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.05.1992 (Annexure P-3) whereby the turn of the water course has been changed. The Deputy Collector vide order dated 17.07.1991 (Annexure P-1) decided that the respondent No.4 would get the first turn followed by the petitioner who would be followed by the respondent No.5. The respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.11.1991 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter a revision C.W.P. No.12450 of 1992 -2- was filed which was allowed. At the very outset it must be noticed that despite being served none entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and thus there is no rebuttal to the factual assertions made in the writ petition. The primary ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the appeal filed by the respondent No.4 was dismissed as withdrawn he would not have the right to even file a further revision and, consequently the Superintending Canal Officer would have no competence to set aside the order of the District Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1981 PLJ 434, whereby it was held that in case of an agreed order the appeal would not be maintainable. As per learned counsel, once the respondent No.4 got his appeal dismissed as withdrawn it would mean that he accepted the impugned order and in the present case by doing this the respondent No.4 accepted the order of the Deputy Collector. Since none has appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service and since even in my considered opinion this is the correct position in law, I deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition. Petition is allowed and the order dated 12.05.1992 (Annexure P-3) is set aside while order dated 17.07.1991 (Annexure P-1) is restored. C.W.P. No.12450 of 1992 -3- ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 21, 2011 JUDGE ashish