- (1.) Nathu petitioner is owner of land comprising in Killa Nos. 21, 22/2 of Rectangle No. 86 and Killa No. 1, 29/1 of Rectangle No. 95 in the revenue estate of village Beri Dopana, Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak. The land of the petitioner and other co-shareres including Suraj Bhan respondent No. 3 was being irrigated from out-let bearing No. RD 9218-L Jhajjar Distributary of village Beri Dopana. The petitioner alleges that the sanctioned Khal K1, K2, K3 as shown in the site plan attached with the petition as Annexure P-1 runs along the Southern and Easter boundary of his land. On the application of Suraj Bhan respondent No. 3 and others, the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Jhajjar under Section 24(3) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act (hereinafter called the Act) vide his order dated 20.6.1984, illegally ordered the restoration of the imaginary Khal K3 as shown in the site plan which resulted in bifurcating the land of the petitioner in two blocks. The petitioner filed appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, MITC, Haryana against the said order which was wrongly rejected on 28.7.1984. The petitioner then resorted to file a civil suit for permanent injunction wherein the Sub Judge restrained the defendants from digging any water-course through the land of the petitioner in pursuance of the order of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer and Divisional Canal Officer till the disposal of the suit. The appeal filed by respondent No. 3 against that order was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Rohtak. Thereafter, on the request of Suraj Bhan respondent No. 3 and other co-sharers, the Canal authorities prepared a scheme under Section 17 of the Act for sanctioning of the link watercourse. The learned Divisional Canal Officer, after hearing both the parties, vide his order dated 26.7.1985 restored the water-course to its original site K 1, K 2 and K 3 as shown in the plan Annexure P-1. On the appeal filed by Suraj Bhan respondent No. 3 and others, the Superintending Canal Officer, Western Jumma Canal West Circle, Rohtak vide his order dated 22.10.1985 vacated the above referred decision of the Divisional Canal Officer by holding that the water-course having already been sanctioned by the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation upto the level of the Chief Canal Officer could not be interfered with by the Divisional Canal Officer. The petitioner then resorted to filing the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 28.7.1986 Annexure P-3 of the Chief Canal Officer, MITC, Chandigarh restoring the Khal at site NK on the ground that he has not passed the speaking order. It is further mentioned that respondent No. 1 has failed to take into consideration that water-course NK 3 would bifurcate the land holdings of the petitioner into two blocks and would disturb the functioning of his tube well. It was also averred that respondent No. 1 failed to take into consideration the fact that water-course NK 3 is a lengthy one whereas the other water-course is more suitable for irrigation of the land. In was also contended that Suraj Bhan respondent and others must be irrigating their land from other water-courses. As per entries in the Khasra Girdawari, they are growing crops with the help of canal water. 3 In the return filed by respondent No. 1 it was submitted that water-courese NK 3 was a running water-course and the Divisional Canal Officer, MITC Rohtak vide his order Annexure P-4 ordered to convert it into a pacca water- course. If was further maintained that water-course NK 3 is more feasible in the interest of irrigation and the impugned order pased by him was perfectly legal. 3 Suraj Bhan respondent No. 3 through a separate return contended that the answering respondents have been deprived of the only means of irrigation to their fields due to the clever tactics on the part of the petitioner. It was further maintained that the water-course NK-3 was already in existence and that the Divisional Canal officer had published a scheme under Section 17 of the Act for approval of the brick lining of this water-course after giving notice to all the shareholders including the present petitioner. The lining of the water-course was suggested upto the length of 3 Killas. Thereafter, the matter was taken in appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, MITC, Rohtak who vide his order dated 9.9.1980 (Annexure P-5) extended length of this water-course by 7 Killas. This order of the S.C.O. was confirmed by the Chief Canal Officer, H.S. MITC, Chandigarh vide his order dated 9.6.1981 (Annexure P-6). Thus it was maintained that even though the order has become final, the petitioner due to his powerful influence did not permit the Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation authorities to proceed with the lining of the said water-Course in the existing length of 3 killas from N to N'. Thereafter, he demolished the running water-course in the second killa so that his own irrigation was not affected by the others could not avail of water. The petitioner also filed a Civil Suit No. 358 of 1984 in the Court of Shri H.P. Singh, Sub Judge I Class, Jhajjar and sought a temporary injunction which was declined by the trial Court on 21.8.1984, copy of the over is attached as Annexure R-3/1 to the writ petition. The petitioner then filed another civil suit No. 420 of 1984 in a different Court at Jhajjar for getting temporary injunction but his attempt was frustrated through the intervention of District Judge, Rohtak, who vide his order dated 13.9.1984 (copy Annexure R-3/2) restrained the trial Court from dealing with the application for temporary injunction. Finally the petitioner instituted another Civil Suit No. 667 of 1984 in the Court of Sub Judge I Class, Bahadurgarh and succeeded in obtaining temporary injunction on 22.1.1985 even though his earlier suit at jhajjar was still pending. Thereafter his earlier suit was dismissed in default on 13.5.1985 by sub Judge I Class, Jhajjar copy of order is (Annexure R-3/3). Thus it was maintained that the petitioner has been abusing the process of the Court at every stage even though the provisions of Section 25 of the Act completely bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It was also maintained that Divisional Canal Officer modified the alignment of the water-course but that order was upset in appeal by the Superintending Canal Officer on the ground that the matter had already been settled by the Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation authorities. The conduct of the petitioner in not taking any objection to the alignment of the existing water-course NK 3 before Divisional Canal Officer, Superintending Canal Officer and the Chief Canal Officer who had passed orders copies (Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6) respectively was also stressed. 4 During the course of arguments, the petitioner was allowed to place on the record copy Annexure P-7 of the order of Divisional Canal Officer dated 26.7.1985 while the respondent No. 3 was allowed to place on the record copy of the order dated 12.10.1985 (Annexure R-4) of the Superintending Canal Officer, Rohtak vacating the aforesaid order (Annexure P-7). 5 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record. 6 The perusal of Annexure P-4, a copy of the order of Divisional Canal Officer MITC Rohtak reveals that a scheme was prepared under Section 17 (1) of the Act for lining the existing water course in order to avoid the loss of water due to seepage and its wastage as a result of the difference in the level of the water-course. This draft scheme was prepared and got published on 16.5.1985 under Section 18(1) of the Act. It further shows that the scheme was also explained to the different share-holders including Nathu petitioner and their statement was also recorded. Initially the lining of this water-course NK 3 upto the length of 3 killas was suggested even though Puran Mal share-holder had suggested its extension upto the lenght of 10 killas. Nathu petitioner had not raised any objection about the lining of this water-course on the ground that he and others would not be able to pay the lining charges. In this scheme the existing water-course has been depicted in between common ridge of killa Nos. 21, 22, 23, and Rectangle No. 26 on one side and Killa Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Rectangle No. 95 belonging to the petitioner on the other side. Against this order, the petitioner has not gone in appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, MITC but only Karma Singh and others had done so, as they had a grouse that the lining of the water-course should be extended upto 10 killas in length. The Superintending Canal Officer MITC, Rohtak vide his order dated 9.9.1980 copy (Annexure P-5) extended the lining of the water-course upto the length of 10 killas against the above referred order of the Divisional Canal Officer. Karam Singh, shareholder, filed a second appeal for further extension of the lining of water-course than the one approved by the Superintending Canal officer. This appeal was dismissed by the Cheif Canal Officer, HSMITC, Chandigarh on 9.6.1981 vide (annexure P-6), on the ground it being not maintainable and being not pressed. There is no dispute between the parties that the lining work of the water-courses in being done by the Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation although the supervision of running of the canals etc. still vests in the Canal Department. Strange enough the Superintending Canal officer (Irrigation) again reopened the matter suo motu and vide his order copy (Annexure P-2) dated 16.4.1986 changed the lining of the water-course from NK 3 to K1, K2 and K3 mainly on the ground that it bifurcates the land holdings of Nathu petitioner besides disturbing the tubewell falling along this course. Suraj Bhan respondent No. 3, then want in appeal against that order before the Chief Canal Officer, MITC which was accepted and the order copy (Annexure P-2) of the Superintending Canal Officer, MITC, Rohtak was set aside by holding that he had no jurisdiction to revise the order regarding the lining of the water-course which has become final as the Chief Canal Officer vide his order Annexure P-6 had approved the order of the Superintending Canal Officer (copy Annexure P-5) regarding the lining of the water-course NK-3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order Annexure P-3 passed by the Chief Canal Officer, MITC, Chandigarh except contending that the water-course would result in bifurcating his land in two blocks besides upsetting the irrigation from the existing tubewell. He further maintained that the water-course has since long been demolished and there is no sense in restoring the same. 7 I find no force in this contention as the perusal of the order copy Annexure P-4 of the Divisional Canal Officer, Haryana, MITC, Rohtak leaves no doubt that NK 3 was the existing water-course. The factum that the petitioner had not taken any objection regarding the lining of this water-course before the Divisional Canal officer, MITC or before the Superintending Canal Officer or before the Chief Canal Officer, who had approved the scheme for lining of the water-course further shows that as a matter of fact his tubewell is not actually disturbed by the lining of this water-course but the irrigation from that tubewell may have been disturbed due to the bifurcation of his land holdings. Perusal of the plan attached with the petitioner clearly shows that the lining of the water-couse NK 3 is straight and direct whereas its proposed lining along with K1, K2, K3 is circuitous which would certainly hamper the flow of water and thus result in loss in the irrigation of the remaining share holders. 8 It appears that the petitioner is quite an influential person as he had ultimately succeeded in hoodwinking the Civil Court in getting an order of ad-interim injunction even though the earlier two suits filed by him where no such relief was granted by the trial Court were got dismissed as withdrawn. The conduct of the petitioner in getting a suitable order in his favour from the Divisional Canal Officer (Irrigation) copy (annexure P-7) also shows that he has tried to by-pass the order copy (Annexure P-6) of the Chief Canal Officer, HSMITC, Chandigarh which has become final. Order copy Annexure P-7 was rightly set aside by the Superintending Canal Officer (Irrigation) vide his order dated 22.10.1985 copy Annexure R-3/4. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the lining of the water-course NK 3 would result in irreparable loss to the petitioner especially when said water-course was already existing and its lining will further improve the irrigation chances. 9 It has been the consistent view of this Court that once the Superintending Canal Officer accepted the scheme approved by the Divisional Cancal Officer, the Superintending Canal Officer or other authority has no jurisdiction to disturb it. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of Tek Chand V. State of Haryana and others, 1968 70 PunLR 336 wherein Tek Chand, J. (as he then was) of this Court after noticing the Full Bench decision of this Court in Deep Chand V. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, 1964 CurLJ 128 held that the inherent powers reserved in Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure cannot be resorted to for permitting a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal to vary or alter any order passed by it on the ground that it was later considered to be erroneous on merits. Thus under these circumstances the order copy Annexure P-2 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer of his own accord revising the previous order of the Divisional Canal Officer of his own accord revising the previous order of the Divisional Canal Officer which has become final is certainly illegal as there is no such provision in the Act. 10 Again a similar controversy was resolved by a Single Bench of this Court in Nand Singh and others V. Superintending Canal officer and others,1969 71 PunLR 150 by holding that there is no provision in the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act allowing the power of review to the Superintending Canal Officer while passing the earlier order, he acted as quasi-judicial tribunal. This view was against enforced by the Single Bench of this Court in Sube Singh and others V. Superintending Engineer and others, 1983 PunLJ 351. 11 For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.;