Manmohan Singh Gujral, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which has been filed by 83 residents of village Ghilaur Kalan, tehsil Gohana, district Rohtak, is directed against the order of the Sub Divisional Canal Officer dated the 17th July 1965, passed under section 30 -B of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter called the Act) and the order of the Divisional Canal Officer dated the 18th September, 1965 and that of the Superintending Canal Officer dated the 12th April, 1966.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that their land was being irrigated through outlet No. RD 109170D of Rohtak distributary and that respondent No. 3 Bhagwan Singh whose land was situated in village Sangi got his water through outlet No. RD 1,12000 -L of the same distributary as that village was attached to the second outlet. It was asserted that outlet No. RD 109170 -L was meant exclusively for the residents of village Ghilaur Kalan and that this had been the position a since long. In order to cause harm to the residents of village (sic) Kalan, respondent No. 5 made an application for transfer of hi; Tea to outlet No. RD 109170 -L and this application was accepted by he Divisional Canal Officer on the 20th July, 1963. Being aggrieved by this order, the residents of village Ghilaur Kalan filed an appeal which was accepted by the Superintending Canal Officer by order dated the 10th September, 1964 (Annexure A). The case of the petitioners further is that in spite of this order of the Superintending Canal Officer respondent No. 5 again moved the Sub Divisional Canal Officer who accepting this application prepared a scheme and forwarded it to the Divisional Canal Officer by order dated the 17th July, 1965. The Divisional Canal Officer confirmed this scheme under section 30 -B (4) of the Act on the 18th September, 1965. The persons aggrieved by this order filed an application on the 10th February, 1966 which was disposed of by the order of the Superintending Canal Officer dated (sic) 12th April, 1966 (Annexure C). Having been unsuccessful before in Canal authorities, the petitioners, have approached this Court is quashing the orders of the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer mentioned above. The petition is contested on behalf of the respondents and in the return filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 through the affidavit of Shri Bhagirath Lal, Divisional Canal Officer, it is pointed out that the orders dated the 20th July, 1963, and the 10th April 1964, were passed under section 20 of the Act and that subsequently a scheme was prepared under section 30 -A and was approved under section 30 -B of the Act and that no illegality had been committed in the framing and approval of the scheme.
(3.) ON behalf of the petitioners in the main two objections have been raised. It is firstly pointed out that having passed the order on the 20th July, 196, the Divisional Canal Officer could not approve the scheme, as this would amount to reviewing the order of the Superintending Canal Officer dated the 10th September 1964 by which the application of respondent No. 5 had bean dismissed The second contention raises the question whether while confirming the scheme the Divisional Canal Officer is required to give a hearing to the parties or not ; the argument on behalf of the petitioners being that at this stage also a hearing to the objectors is necessary.;