P.C.Pandit, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by Kanahya Lal and three others, landowners in village Kheri Sampla. District Rohtak, challenging the legality of the order dated 27th of February, 1966. passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Western Jumna Canal, West Circle, Rohtak, respondent No. 1.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, Warabandi in their village was fixed by the Deputy Collector, Rohtak, on 24th of November, 1964. The said Officer prepared a scheme according to which every landowner was to be given Nakka at his major portion. This scheme superseded an earlier one dated 5th of July, 1957, and it was agreed to by all the landowners of the village. Ranjit and another landowner of the village respondent No. 3, went in appeal against the order of the Deputy Collector to the Divisional Canal Officer, who rejected the same on 3rd of May, l965. Thereafter respondent No. 3 filed a revision petition before the Superintending Canal Officer, who allowed it by means of the impugned order dated 27th of February, 1966. That led to the filing of the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised two objections before me. In the first place, he submitted that the learned Superintending Canal Officer was under the impression that he was hearing an appeal and not a revision against the order of the Divisional Canal Officer and that fact would be apparent from his order itself. At any rate, he had no authority to pass the impugned order unless he came to the conclusion that the Divisional Canal Officer had in any way exceeded his jurisdiction in making it.
(3.) SECONDLY , it was contended that, in any case, the Superintending Canal Officer had not given any reason for reversing the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer by which the latter had confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector.;