- (1.) Sadhu Singh Respondent No. 4 applied to the Divisional Canal Officer, Madhopur Division, Upper Bari Doab Circle, Gurdaspur, to frame a scheme under Section 30-C of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for giving an alternate watercourse for the purpose of irrigation of his land. This application was rejected by the Divisional Canal Officer vide his order dated April 16, 1973, on the ground that Sadhu Singh had been getting cent per cent irrigation from the water course sanctioned under the earlier scheme. He held that the demand of respondent No. 4 was not justified. It appears that Ranga Singh and Sadhu Singh respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, Upper Bari Doab Canal Circle, Amritsar, within a period of one month but at that time the said officer had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal or a revision petition against the order of the Divisional Canal Officer declining to frame a new scheme. In the meantime, sub-section (3) was added to section 30-B which is in the following terms :- "The Superintending Canal Officer, may suo motu within a period of 30 days from the date of publication under Section 30-C or on an application by the person aggrieved by the approval, modification or rejection of the Scheme, made within like period, call for the record of the Scheme, from the Divisional Canal Officer and may after examining the same, confirm the action taken by Divisional Canal Officer, or may after affording to the person affected an opportunity of being heard, approve or modify the Scheme in such form as he may deem fit or may reject the same." Respondent No. 1 took up the appeal of respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and decided it in their favour. The result was that a new watercourse was allowed to Ranga Singh and Sadhu Singh respondent Nos. 3 & 4 which ran across the field of the petitioner. He has filed this petition to challenge the order dated January 31, 1974, Annexure 'P. 3', passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, on the ground that there was no valid appeal pending before him and that the appeal could not have been decided by him on merits after a period of thirty days from the date of the order of the Divisional Canal Officer declining to sanction the scheme.
(2.) On behalf of the respondents, it has urged that the appeal in this case was filed within time and as and when the statute was amended, the Superintending Canal Officer decided the same. It is further suggested that the order passed by the latter officer did not suffer from any illegality.
(3.) The statutory provision investing the Superintending Canal Officer with the jurisdiction to take seisin of the matter has been noticed above. A perusal of this provision shows that the Superintending Canal Officer can take cognizance of the matter within thirty days of either the publication of the scheme or of the date when the Divisional Canal Officer passes the order. Admittedly in this case the Divisional Canal, Officer did not sanction any scheme and so none was published as laid down by Section 30-C of the Act. The Superintending Canal Officer could only have jurisdiction to revise the order passed by the Divisional Canal officer if he was competent to take cognizance of the matter within thirty days of the date when the Divisional Canal Officer rejected the request of Sadhu Singh respondent for the sanction of the additional watercourse. The Divisional canal Officer had declined to sanction the scheme on April 16, 1973, and the Superintending Canal Officer could obviously not hear an appeal or revision against this order on January 31, 1974.;