- (1.) This petition has arisen out of the dispute over the supply of water to the lands of the petitioners and respondent No. 1.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners and respondent No. 1 are landowners in village Kokat, Tehsil Kaithal, District Karnal. It is alleged that the watercourse for the supply of water to the lands of the petitioners and respondent No. 1 went through lines ABCD and both the parties were getting water properly from the said watercourse. Some change was ordered by the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer in the alignment, as a result of which the petitioners challenged the same, and prayed for the restoration of the old watercourse. The Divisional Canal Officer called both the parties and after hearing them, restored the old watercourse, i.e., ABCD and earlier changes made by the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer were set aside. Aggrieved by the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, respondent No. 3, who accepted the same vide his order dated December 31, 1965 (copy Annexure 'B' to the petition) and the alignment 'DE' ordered by the Divisional Canal Officer was restored. It is against these two orders of the Canal Officers that the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order is not a speaking order and that no reasons have been given by the Superintending Canal Officer while setting aside the order. I find no merit in this contention. The impugned order was passed to set aside the order of the Divisional Canal Officer (Annexure 'A'). In fact, the Divisional Canal Officer has no authority in law to pass such an order on the revisional side. He has no powers under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 to hear revisions. Sub-section (3) of Section 30-B reads as follows : "The Superintending Canal Officer may, suo motu at any time or on an application by any person aggrieved by the approved scheme made within a period of thirty days from the date of publication of the particulars of the scheme under Section 30-C, revise the scheme approved by the Divisional Canal Officer : Provided that such revision shall not be made without affording to the person affected an opportunity of being heard." A bare reading of the provision shows that it is only the Superintending Canal Officer who has the power of review and not the Divisional Canal Officer. It is clear that the order (Annexure 'A' to the petition) passed by Divisional Canal Officer is patently illegal and without any authority of law. In fact, the alignment 'DE', recommended by the Divisional Canal Officer, was approved in September, 1964. The Divisional Canal Officer again revised the decision on October 15, 1965 on an appeal received through the Irrigation and Power Minister, Punjab, Chandigarh, and it was in this situation that the Superintending Canal Officer passed the impugned order. There is no power of revision or review with the Divisional Canal Officer under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any law or any authority under which the Divisional Canal Officer can revise or review his earlier orders.;