RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. - (1.) These four identical writ petitions are being disposed of vide this common order, as all these writ petitions raise similar questions of facts and law. Notice of motion was issued.
(2.) The common issue involved in all these four writ petitions is that the Superintending Canal Officers refused to entertain the revision petitions filed by the aggrieved parties against the orders passed by Divisional Canal Officer under Section 20 (3) of the Haryana Canal Drainage Act, 1974 ('the Act' for short), thereby refusing to exercise revisional powers vested with them, compelling all these four petitioners to approach this Court.
(3.) Three Superintending Canal Officers namely Sarv Sh. Niteesh Jain, Rajesh Kumar, Atma Ram, are present in the Court. When confronted with self contradictory orders passed by them, while entertaining revision petitions in same matters at an earlier point of time and refusing to entertain similar revision petitions in those very matters at a later point of time, they For Subsequent orders see CWP-22723-2016, CWP-23499-2016, -- and 1 more.;