- (1.) Vide notification dated May 29, 1964; the State of Punjab invested the Collectors of certain districts with the powers of the Canal Officers. The material portion of the notification reads as under :- "No. 6257-IW3-62/7589 : In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (VIII of 1973), the Governor of Punjab is pleased to declare that the powers conferred on the Canal Officers under Section 57-A read with Sections 30-A to 30-G of the said Act shall be exercisable by Collectors of the following districts within their respective jurisdiction for fields (link) drains :" In exercise of the powers of the Divisional Canal Officer vested in him by the above-mentioned notification, the District Collector, Sangrur, respondent No. 2 framed a scheme under Section 30-A of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (hereinafter called the Act). The petitioners filed objections against this scheme which were dismissed by him vide his order dated September 15, 1970. Besides challenging the decision on merits, the petitioners have challenged this decision on the ground that the aforementioned notification vests respondent No. 2 with all the powers of the Canal Officers under the Act. According to them, the Superintending Canal Officer is also a Canal Officer envisaged by the notification and the resultant situation created is that the District Collector becomes a Divisional Canal Officer and a Superintending Canal Officer - all rolled into one. In this manner the petitioners are deprived of their statutory right of appeal under Section 30-B of the Act, it is precisely for this reason that the petitioners did not prefer any appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer.
(2.) The notification Annexure 'C' is of course somewhat unhappily worded and is capable of being interpreted as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In my considered opinion, it is a fit case in which this notification deserves to be clarified so that it becomes immune to challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution. In Tirath Singh v. Bachhitar Singh and others, 1955 AIR(SC) 830 it was observed as under :- "It is argued that if the language of the enactment is interpreted in its literal and grammatical sense, there could be no escape from the conclusion that parties to the petition are also entitled to notice under the proviso. But it is a rule of interpretation well established that, where the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even the structure of the sentence."
(3.) It appears that the State Government invested the District Collectors with the powers of the Divisional Canal Officers only. It was never their intention to invest them with the powers of the Superintending Canal Officers also. In Roop Chand v. State of Punjab and another, 1963 AIR(SC) 1503it has been authoritatively settled by the highest Court of the land that the same authority cannot be invested with original and appellate powers. The State Government is presumed to be aware of this pronouncement of law, and when it mentioned the words "Canal Officers" in the impugned notification it really meant that the powers of the Divisional Canal Officers should only be invested in the District Collectors I, therefore, hold that the District Collector, Sangrur exercised the powers of the Divisional Canal Officer only under the impugned notification and the order passed by him is revisable by the Superintending Canal Officer. It is, therefore, ordered that the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer would be deemed to have been passed today for the purposes of the limitation provided for filing an appeal. In the face of this finding, the other pleas on merits cannot be entertained by me at this stage and to that extent the petition is infructuous.;