RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appellant has filed the writ petition No. 3336/97 challenging the order dt. 21st March, 1997 declaring Muraba Nos. 164/58 and 164/50 of Chak No. 4 BGM (A) belonging to respondent No. 3 as command area. The petitioners challenged the order inter alia on the ground that initial transfer of land from Chak 1 ALM to Chak 4 BGM (A) itself was invalid. The assertion of the petitioner while challenging this order is para 3 of his petition reads as under: That although the land of the respondent No. 3 was situated in Chack No. 1 ALM, the same was got transferred in Chack No. 4 B.G.M. (A) by manipulation with the respondents No. 1 and 2. The said transfer was made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without giving them a notice under the Irrigation Act and Rules, even the order by which the said land was transferred was not made available to the petitioners. The petition was dismissed in limine without any reply on behalf of the respondent by holding that Section 20 does not apply to the present case and therefore procedure prescribed Under/section 20 of the Irrigation Act need not be followed. It is against this order dt. 8th Sept. 1997 the present appeal has been filed. After issuing show cause notice the appeal was admitted on 23rd Feb. 1998. The interim order has been passed on 24.9.1997 which was continued by order dt. 21.12.1999 with the liberty to the respondent to make an application to vacate the stay order after filing the reply.
(3.) THE reply -affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 pointing out that petition filed by the petitioner suffers from suppressio vari and misstatements of facts. It was alleged in the reply affidavit that proceeding for transfer of land in question of respondent No. 3 from Chak No. 1 ALM to Chak No. 4 BGM (A) took place in 1993. Notices were issued under Rule 4 to all the interested persons. Some of the cultivators of Chak a BGM (A) had participated and given no objection to the proposed transfer of the land of the respondent No. 3 from Chak No. 1 ALM to Chak 1 BGM (A). It was alleged in the reply that notice was served personally on petitioner -appellant No. 1 and petitioner -appellant No. 7. In reply affidavit it was also alleged that infact the order of transferring the land from Chak 1 ALM to Chak 4 BGM(A) was made in 1994 to the knowledge of petitioners. Yet a false plea has been raised about ignorance and want of notice.;