- (1.) The petitioner Mal Singh seeks for quashing of the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer on 29.10.1975. The writ petition has been instituted in the year 1987 since the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer was sought to be given effect to after alleged approval from the Superintending Canal Officer on 30.03.1987. The order purports to settle a new chakbandi after the consolidation proceedings when the location and identification of properties had to be redefined. The petitioner's objection was, the area which had been kept for extension of abadi would not be entitled to irrigation and, therefore, in the preparation of the scheme, the area of land under an abadi shall be excluded. The petitioner would contend that from the time when the Divisional Canal Officer passed an order till it was given effect to 11 years later there had been several changes such as, acquisition of about 444 kanals and 18 marlas of land by the State Government and several new houses abutting the road connecting Bagha Purana to Moga and Village Baja Khanna to Barnala had come up and, therefore, the lands had ceased to be irrigable. The chakbandi announced was, therefore, without taking note of the subsequent changes.
(2.) The impugned order had been passed originally by the Divisional Canal Officer taking note of the objections of the petitioner who claimed that the property reserved as abadi must be excluded from the irrigable area. An inspection appears to have carried out and the Divisional Canal Officer has observed that Field No.441-530 had been used as garden but the remaining property had all been irrigable lands except for a small extent of 0.52 acres of land in Field Nos.363-533, which had been recorded as unirrigable lands.
(3.) There is surely some merit in the contentions that the scheme approved would require to be revisited to take notice of subsequent changes. It was perhaps not necessary for the Divisional Canal Officer's order to be put up before the Superintending Canal Officer for approval. The petitioner was contending that the Superintending Canal Officer had only revisional powers and there was no need for the Divisional Canal Officer to fetter his own right and delay giving effect to his order to await for approval from the Superintending Canal Officer. The petitioner's grievance is that when his own order of the year 1974 was being given effect to 11 years later, he must have taken notice of the several changes which have come about.;