- (1.) Sardara Singh and Karnail Singh have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order of the Superintending Canal Officer, dated 14th May, 1968 (copy Annexure 'E' to the petition).
(2.) The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7 are irrigating their fields from outlet No. R.D. 18077, that proceedings under Section 68 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were started by the Deputy Collector, Irrigation Branch, respondent No. 3, and that vide order dated l0th June, 1965 (copy Annexure 'A' to the petition), the Deputy Collector proposed a warabandi by which the turn of the petitioners was consolidated at one place. Sucha Singh respondent objected to the consolidation of the wari of the petitioners but later on he agreed to the same as is clear from the following observations of the Deputy Collector : "At the objection of Sh. Sucha Singh s/o Pritam Singh to fix his Nakka after Sardara Singh s/o Prem Singh, ten minutes as compensation was offered by Shri Jarnail Singh s/o Sardara Singh to the objectioner and an extra supply from his own turn and requested for the consolidation of his whole turn at the tail qurrah. It was accepted and allowed ten minutes extra Bharai to Sucha Singh after deducting it from the turn of Shri Sardara Singh whose whole turn was ordered to be consolidated at the tail qurrah of the Branch W/course." It seems that even after having agreed to the consolidation of the wari of the petitioners, Sucha Singh felt aggrieved and filed an appeal under Section 68(5) of the Act. The appeal came up for hearing before the Divisional Canal Officer who made a little adjustment in the wari of Sucha Singh respondent by adding 5 minutes more out of the wari of the petitioners (who were respondents before him) to the wari of Sucha Singh, respondent (who was appellant before the Divisional Canal Officer). This adjustment was agreed to by the parties as is evident from the following observations of the Divisonal Canal Officer :- "Now five minutes more are allowed to the appellant, which will be adjusted from the wari of respondent and will be added to the wari of appellant to which both the parties agreed."
(3.) It seems Sucha Singh was still dissatisfied and filed a revision petition under sub-section (6) of Section 68 before the Superintendirig Canal Officer who set aside the order of the Divisional Canal Officer as well as that of the Deputy Collector and ordered that the nakkas of the share holders mentioned in the order be fixed on the basis of the formula (first come first served), as per parrat prepared by the Zilladar on 19th February, 1968. It is against this order of the Superintending Canal Officer that the present petition has been filed by Sardara Singh and Karnail Singh.;