Amarjeet Chaudhary, J. - (1.) The petitioners, all residents of village Kulana, Tehsil Mansa, District Bathinda, through this writ petition under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India, have sought quashing of decision of Divisional Canal Officer dated 22.3.1978, copy Annexure P-1 to the writ petition and decision of Superintending Canal Officer dated 28.9.1990, copy Annexure P-6, whereby the petitioners appeal was dismissed.
(2.) The challenge to the aforesaid orders is primarily on the grounds that the Divisional Canal Officer, respondent No. 3 at the time of framing the scheme had not followed the procedure as envisaged under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 and no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioners. The next plea raised by the petitioners is that the petitioners Counsel had made a request to respondent No. 2 i.e. Superintending Canal Officer for adjournment of the case. Not only the request of the petitioners was declined by him, rather an ex parte decision was taken by him. The other plea is that the scheme is not in the interest of the share-holders.
(3.) The respondents have controverted the stand by filing a detailed written statement.;