- (1.) Jagrup Singh has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing order dated July 26, 1976, of the Superintending Canal Officer (a copy of which is Annexure P-2, appended to the petition) whereby he allowed the appeal of Budh Singh, respondent No. 3 and sanctioned a water course through the land of the petitioner. It has been filed in the following circumstances : Maghar Singh, respondent No. 4 made an application that his land was not getting proper irrigation through existing water course ACDEF and that he should be provided a water course XYZOF instead of ACDEF. It is the case of the petitioner that no scheme was prepared. The Divisional Canal Officer heard the parties at length and observed as under :- "The case was discussed with Ziledar Sekha on 30.3.1976 when it was found that the land of Sh. Maghar Singh is receiving proper irrigation through existing water course CDEF. It is also clear from the list of irrigation for Khariff 1975 that the land of Shri Maghar Singh applicant is being irrigated properly. Therefore, there is no necessity to sanction a new water course for the applicant's land. The existing water course of CDEF for the land of Shri Maghar Singh applicant should remain as such and the same is sanctioned. The scheme as published for water course XYZOF under section 30-B(2) of the Canal Act VIII-1873 is hereby rejected." Budh Singh has filed an appeal against this order (dated March 30, 1976). The Superintending Canal Officer allowed the appeal. He set aside the impugned order of the Divisional Canal Officer holding that water course CDEF bifurcates fields of Budh Singh and adds to his worries. From point 'E' onwards it attains lower levels. The alignment of water course XYZOF will be on the one side of Budh Singh's land and the other side of the lands of Jagrup Singh and Jeet Singh. So, he sanctioned water course XYZOF for the irrigation of Maghar Singh's land. This affected the land of Jagrup Singh. Dissatisfied with this, Jagrup Singh has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) Mr, Sarjit Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vigorously argued that no scheme was prepared in this case. This argument cannot be accepted. In his reply, the Divisional Canal Officer has specifically stated that a scheme was prepared and he has given the details regarding that. It was proposed that water course AXYZOF should be sanctioned instead of water course ACDEF. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mehorana, also recommended that this scheme should be sanctioned. In view of this categorical stand of Divisional Canal Officer, the allegations of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
(3.) Mr. Sarjit Singh then contended that Budh Singh was not aggrieved by the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, because the Divisional Canal Officer had rejected the scheme allegedly prepared on the application of Maghar Singh. Budh Singh had not filed any application for the change of water course or the framing of the scheme. So, if the scheme was rejected, the position of Budh Singh did not in any way worsen by the order of rejection of scheme by the Divisional Canal Officer. So, he was not aggrieved by this order and under sub-section (1) of Section 30-B of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (for short 'the Act') only a person who was aggrieved by the approval, modification or rejection of the scheme may within a period of 30 days from the publication of the scheme file a revision before the Superintending Canal Officer. He has sought to buttress this argument by referring to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sohan Singh v. Shri Surjit Singh Sodhi, Commissioner Patiala Division, Patiala,1973 PunLJ 71.;