C.W.P.No.3908 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.3908 of 2010 Date of Decision:22.11.2011 Krishan ...Petitioner Versus Superintending Canal Officer & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Prashad, DAG Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.P.K.Ganga, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 & 5. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Jai Narain son of Ramji Lal (respondent No.4) and others filed an application before the Deputy Collector, Nehrana, Water Services, Sirsa (respondent No.3) for changing his turn of water (wari) from Khata No.56 to Khata No.34 on running watercourse and claimed usual Jharai and Bharai, without impleading petitioner Krishan son of Jee Ram as a party. The Deputy Collector recommended that since the matter is sub-judice in civil Court, so, the warabandi may not be finalized, by virtue of order dated 3.3.2009 (Annexure P1). Respondent No.4 filed the appeal, which was dismissed by the Divisional Canal Officer (for brevity “the DCO”) (respondent No.2), by means of impugned order dated 29.6.2009 (Annexure P2). In the wake of revision petition by respondent No.4, the Superintending Canal Officer (for short “the SCO”) (respondent No.1) modified the order (Annexure P2), by way of impugned order dated 8.1.2010 (Annexure P3), which, in substance, is as under:- C.W.P.No.3908 of 2010 -2- “After receiving the suggestion/recommendation of Divisional Canal Officer, was taken into consideration and the same was found almost right solution of the issue among the parties as due to this arrangement the waris of the petitioners can be consolidated and the respondent will also get the water running at his sanctioned taking point. In view of above circumstances the wari of Khata No.34 & 35 of the petitioners are ordered to be fixed continuously prior to the wari of Khara No.34/1 of the respondent to avoid any loss of wari or the irrigation of any parties. The decision of the lower courts are modified upto this extent and revision petitions are disposed off accordingly under Section 55(6) of the Canal Act. Decision be conveyed.” 2. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P2 and P3), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. After hearing the counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, as the impugned orders cannot legally be sustained, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 4. As is evident from the record, that respondent No.4 moved an application for change of turn of water from Khata No.56 to Khata No.34, before respondent No.3, without impleading the petitioner as a party. It is not a matter of dispute that changing the turn of water of respondent No.4 would naturally adversely affect the irrigation rights of the petitioner as mentioned at Serial No.35 of Warabandi (Annexure P5). Neither the DCO nor the SCO issued any notice or provided opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders, adversely affecting his rights. Such valuable rights of irrigation cannot be taken away without impleading the petitioner as a party or issuing notice or providing any opportunity of being heard to him in this relevant connection. 5. One of the basic canons of justice is that no one can be condemned unheard and no order prejudicially affecting any person can be passed by a public C.W.P.No.3908 of 2010 -3- authority without affording him reasonable opportunity to defend himself or represent his cause. As a general rule, an authority entrusted with the task of deciding lis between the parties or empowered to make an order which prejudicially affects the rights of any individual or visits him with civil consequences is duty bound to act in consonance with the basic rules of natural justice and he should be given an opportunity to explain his position. This right of hearing is fundamental to a just decision, has its roots in the notion of fair procedure and forms an integral part of the concept of rule of law. It draws the attention of such statutory authorities to the imperative necessity of not overlooking the cause which may be shown by the other side before coming to its decision. Therefore, the impugned orders passed at the back of the petitioner cannot legally be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 6. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent hearing of the matter, the instant writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders (Annexures P2 & P3) are hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to DCO-respondent No.2 to decide the matter afresh after impleading the petitioner and similarly situated persons as parties and after issuing notice and providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the affected persons. 7. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the DCO-respondent No.2 on 10.1.2012 for further proceedings. 8. Needless to mention here that nothing recorded herein above would reflect, in any manner, on the merits of the case, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 22.11.2011 Judge AS