D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying that the order of the Superintending Canal Officer passed in appeal under Section 30FF (4) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (Act No. 8 of 1873) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) be quashed.
(2.) THIS was admitted to a larger Bench, because it seems that the admitting Bench entertained some doubts as to the correctness of the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Umed Singh v. State of Haryana, 1970 P.L.J. 503. The facts are simple and do not admit of any controversy. The sanctioned watercourse, so far as the Petitioner is concerned, admittedly was 'ABCD'. The Petitioner, however, started taking his water from point 'A' in a watercourse denoted by letters 'ABCD' on the plan filed with the return of the Superintending Canal Officer dated 25th April, 1971. For a couple of years before the present petition was filed, the Petitioner was taking water from point 'A' in the watercourse 'ABCD'. The owners of land from points A to B dismantled the watercourse. This led to an application by the Petitioner under Section 30FF of the Act to the Divisional Canal Officer. The Divisional Canal Officer sent for the report from the Ziledar through the Sub -Divisional Officer. The Ziledar reported that the watercourse between points A and B had been dismantled with the result that the Petitioner's crops were suffering and he recommended that it be restored with police help. This recommendation was accepted by the Sub -Divisional Officer who endorsed it and forwarded the papers to the Divisional Canal Officer. The Divisional Canal Officer, thereafter, ordered restoration of the watercourse 'ABCD' with police help. This decision was appealed against by the Respondent, the owner of the land adjoining watercourse 'AB' The Superintending Canal Officer allowed the appeal with the following observations: The Divisional Canal Officer had ordered restoration of watercourse 'AB' The warabandi of this outlet was sanctioned under Section 68 during the year 20th December, 1966. The map attached with the sanctioned warabandi has been seen and it has been found that watercourse 'AB' did not exist at the time of farming the warabandi. In other words, the basis adopted by the Superintending Canal Officer seems to be that as the watercourse 'ABCD' is not authorised, its restoration could not be granted under Section 30FF. In order to safeguard the crops of the Petitioner, he permitted the use of the watercourse 'ABCD' till 15th April, 1971. The Petitioner being dissatisfied with the order of the Superintending Canal Officer has moved this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is based on the decision of A.D. Koshal, J., in Umed Singh's case. In this case after setting out the provisions of Section 30A it was observed: The words used in Clause (a) cover a wide range and must be interpreted to mean, that all sorts of watercourses, sanctioned or unsanctioned, are contemplated by them. On the basis of this decision, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the decision of the Superintending Canal Officer is erroneous in law and he had no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer on the ground that the watercourse 'AB' was not an authorised watercourse.;