Civil Writ Petition Nos.15556 & 15564 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. C.W.P.No.15556 of 2010 Babu Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Superintending Canal Officer & Ors. ...Respondents 2. C.W.P.No.15564 of 2010 Sukhpal Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Superintending Canal Officer & Ors. ...Respondents Date of Decision:-18.10.2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.3. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of above indicated two writ petitions, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the facts have been extracted from (1) CWP No.15556 of 2010 titled as “Babu Singh & Ors. Vs. Superintending Canal Officer & Ors.” for ready reference in this context. 2. The contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petitions and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of application moved by Harchand Singh son of Sarwan Singh (respondent No.3), after giving opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved persons, having obtained the requisite sanction and after following the due procedure, the Divisional Canal Officer (for Civil Writ Petition Nos.15556 & 15564 of 2010 -2- brevity “the DCO”) made his (respondent No.3) land in question commandable and included in the Chak of outlet Burji No.36770-L Cheema Minor, under the provisions of Sections 20 and 30-B(2) of the Northern Canal and Drainage Act and the rules framed thereunder, 1873 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and relevant Rules”), by way of order dated 26.9.2006 (Annexure P1). 3. Dissatisfied with the said decision, petitioners Babu Singh and others filed the appeal, which was accepted by the Superintending Canal Officer (for short “the SCO”), by means of order dated 8.1.2007 (Annexure P2). 4. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P2), respondent No.3 filed CWP Nos.19367 & 19368 of 2007, which came to be disposed of by this Court with a direction to the SCO to re-consider the matter, by virtue of order dated 21.12.2007. 5. In pursuance thereof, the SCO again re-examined the record, matter in detail and after hearing both the parties, maintained the original order (Annexure P1) of the DCO, through the medium of impugned order dated 4.12.2008 (Annexure P3). 6. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders (Annexures P1 and P3) and preferred the instant writ petitions, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petitions. 8. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the SCO did not have the jurisdiction to review his earlier order, so, the impugned order (Annexure P3) is illegal, is neither tenable nor the sweeping observations of this Court in case Sube Singh and others v. The Superintending Engineer and others 1983 P.L.J. 351 are at all applicable to the facts of the instant case, wherein it was observed that the SCO has no power to review his earlier order. 9. As is evident from the record that, the DCO has accepted the Civil Writ Petition Nos.15556 & 15564 of 2010 -3- application of respondent No.3 and included his land in dispute in the irrigation scheme of Chak of outlet Burji No.36770-L of Cheema Minor in the manner depicted hereinabove, vide order (Annexure P1). Although initially, the SCO has accepted the appeal of the petitioners and set aside the said order in a very casual manner, by virtue of order (Annexure P2), but it is not a matter of dispute that against the decision (Annexure P2) of SCO, respondent No.3 filed CWP Nos.19367 & 19368 of 2007, in which, the matter was remanded to the SCO to re- consider the matter afresh by this Court, by means of order dated 21.12.2007. Once the order (Annexure P2) was challenged and the High Court remanded the case to re-consider the matter afresh and in pursuance thereof, the appeal was again decided by the SCO, vide impugned order (Annexure P3). In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith that the SCO has reviewed his earlier order (Annexure P2) in this relevant connection, as urged on behalf of the petitioners. 10. The next celebrated submission of learned counsel that the SCO has passed the impugned order (Annexure P3), without deciding the application (Annexure P4) under relevant Rule 99, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that the presence of the petitioners was duly marked and the DCO as well as SCO have heard them, duly considered their objections and then passed the orders (Annexures P1 & P3), in accordance with the record and law. Thus, the petitioners cannot possibly be heard to say that no opportunity of being heard was provided to them before passing the impugned orders. Therefore, the contrary contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 11. What is not disputed here is that respondent No.3 was not getting the canal irrigation, whereas under the provisions of the Act/relevant Rules, he was entitled to it in order to increase his agriculture yields. On the contrary, the petitioners are irrigating their fields from the canal water and they are unnecessary Civil Writ Petition Nos.15556 & 15564 of 2010 -4- objecting to the arrangement of irrigation of the land of respondent No.3. The authorities under the Act have duly inspected the spot, investigated the matter and recommended for converting the area of respondent No.3 as commandable for the purpose of irrigation. It is clear from the written statement of official respondents that common statement was got verified from the technical authorities regarding feasibility of the irrigation of land of respondent No.3. After due verification, the land of respondent No.3 was made commandable for the purpose of irrigation. The mere speculative apprehension of the petitioners that the inclusion of his land would affect the irrigation prospectus of their land has already been redeemed, whereas Nirmal Singh Brar, DCO has filed an affidavit that the size of indicated outlet No.36770/L Cheema Minor has already been increased by the SCO, by virtue of letter dated 25.6.2010 (Annexure R1) and necessary change would shortly be made accordingly at the spot. In this view of the matter, the objections of the petitioners in regard to inclusion of the land of respondent No.3, in the irrigation scheme, are unfounded and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 12. Moreover, the DCO has rightly included the land of respondent No.3 in the irrigation scheme, vide order (Annexure P1), which was upheld by the SCO, by way of impugned order (Annexure P3), which, in substance, is as under:- “After hearing both the parties, investigation of the record and after discussing the case, the court has found that the order dated 26.9.2006 is correct vide which the Divisional Canal Officer, Bathinda Canal Division, Bathinda has made 15.23 Acres of area as commandable from un- commandable and included the same in the chak of outlet Burji No.36770-L Cheema Minor. In compliance to the order dated 21.12.2002 (sic: 21.12.2007) of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.19368 of 2007, a report was called from Divisional Canal Officer, Bathinda Canal Division, Bathinda, in which he reported that the area to be included in the chak of outlet Burji No.36770-L Cheema Minor falls quite near to the Outlet. This area falls on the pucca watercourse. Therefore, the concerned shareholders shall irrigate their area from this watercourse. According to report of the spot inspection, the watercourse goes adjacent to the area. Therefore, the area is ordered to be included in the chak of outlet Civil Writ Petition Nos.15556 & 15564 of 2010 -5- no.36770/L Cheema Minor after making the same commandable from un- commandable. Therefore, the decision of the Divisional Canal officer, Bathinda Canal Division, Bathinda dated 26.9.2006 is hereby maintained and the decision of the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana dated 8.1.2007 is hereby set aside. This decision is made under Section 30-B(3) of the Canal & Drainage Act, 1873.” 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant context. 14. Meaning thereby, the DCO and SCO have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such orders (Annexures P1 & P3), containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P1 & P3) deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 15. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 16. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petitions are hereby dismissed as such. 17. Needless to mention here that the order (Annexure R1) increasing the irrigation capacity of indicated outlet would be implemented in letter and spirit by the DCO. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 18.10.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No