- (1.) UMARAM , an unsuccessful petitioner, has filed this special appeal against the judgment of single Judge of this Court by which his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer of writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 2 -1 -73 and 13 -6 -74 of the Executive Engineer, Gang Canal South Division, Sriganganagar aid the order dated 2 -3 -68 of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, passed in and reference made to it under Section 27 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act' hereafter was dismissed.
(2.) IN this appeal, the only point argued by Mr. Parekh, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the impugned orders in relation to the alteration in the water channel after an identical prayer for this alteration having been rejected earlier by the competent authorities under the Act was passed in judicial proceedings and in any case was of quasi judicial nature determining the rights of the parties and, therefore, since the above Act provides no provision for review, it was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed on that ground alone That being so, it was argued that the learned single Judge was cot justified in treating as a mere administrative order under Section 22 of the Act and further holding that it was permissible for the authorities under the Act to alter, vary, amend, rescind and review their orders for the alteration of the water -course either by fresh construction in the land of the Murabba holder or by altering it in a manner wherein his land is unwillingly taken possession of by the State to give benefit to his neighbours or other persons. The facts have been given in detail by the learned single fudge and they are not disputed. In a nutshell, the petitioner is khatedar of killa Nos. 24 and 25 in sq. No. 28 and killa No. 4 and 5 in sq No. 37 in chak 24 L.N.P. Chunnilal is khatedar of killa No. 1 to 3, 8 to 13 and 18 to 23 of sq No 28 and the entire land of sq. No, 29 and SO in the said chak Chunnilal is getting the water -supply by water -course which runs between sq No. 38, 37 86 and 35 and sq. No. 42, 43, 44 and 45, and this has to be brought through channels between sq. Nos. 27, 36 and 36, 35 There also exists another water -course running between Sq. No 27 aid 28. Chunnilal applied to the Irrigation Authorities to construct a new water course by extending the existing between sq No 27 and 28 so as to run between sq. No. 28, 29, 30 and sq No. 27, 36 and 35. The petitioner and ether landholders raised some objections. The Executive Engineer rejected the prayer en 2 -11 -72.
(3.) THEN come the impugned orders which were passed on a fresh implication supported by deposit of Rs. 600/ - on account of compensation to he paid to Umaram and others. The same prayer was accepted on the ground that it was necessary in the interest of irrigation. The recommendation dated 2 -2 -73 of the Executive Engineer was considered by the Additional Collector, Sriganganagar on 11 -3 -74 who remanded the case back to the Evecutive Engineer for site -inspection and preparation of level charts which was done on 8 -5 -74 and which resulted in the refraining of the earlier recommendation by order dated 13 -6 -74. The Addl Collector then refused to accept the recommendation on the ground that the Executive Engineer has rejected it earlier. Confronted with the above situation, the Executive Engineer made a reference to the Revenue Appellate Authority under Section 12 of the Act and the same was accepted on 2 -3 -78 and the construction of the water channel as mentioned above, was ordered. Section 27 of the Act is as under. 27. Procedure when irrigation officer disagrees with Collector - If the irrigation officer disagrees with the Collector, the matter shall be referred to the revenue appellate authority for decision. Such decision shall be final and the Collector, if so directed, shall, subject to the provisions of Section 28, cause the said applicant to be placed in occupation of the land so marked out or of the water course to be transferred, as the case may be. We have, at the very threshold of this judgment, stated the points of controversy raise by Mr. Parekh before the learned single Judge which have been reiterated here. The Executive Enginer, functioning as Divisional Irrigation Officer under the Act and it is contended that under Section 54 of the Act, all proceedings which are taken by the various officers under the Act are judicial proceedings and the orders passed there under are judicial orders. Section 54 is contained in part VIII which relates to jurisdiction and reads as under. 54. Power to summon and examine witnesses. - Any officer empowwered under this Act to conduct any inquiry may exercise all such powers connected with the summoning and examining of witnesses, as are conferred on Civil Courts by the Code of Civil Procedure arid every such enquiry shall be deemed a judicial proceeding. The contention of Mr. Parekh is that the Divisional Irrigation Officer, while passing the impugned order, was having the powers of civil courts and the proceedings before him were judicial proceedings It was then argued that even if the court refuses to take the above vtew, then also the power of review cannot be treated as implied even where orders are passed under different striates and they are no judicial orders Reliance was placed on Thokershi and Ors. v. Pradhumansinghji : AIR1970SC1273 Ghaurul Hasan v. State of Rajasthan and : [1962]1SCR772 , Major Chander Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan 1978 UJ(SC) 878 In reply to the submission of Mr. Parekh, both learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. Arora appearing for the contesting respondent Chunnilal have invited our attention to the reasons given by the learned single Judge for repelling the above submissions and the authorities relied upon for substantiating it The learned Single Judge has relied upon Western India Watch Co. v. Its Workmen : (1970)IILLJ256SC and State, of Madras v. CP Sarothy : (1953)ILLJ174SC and held on the analogy of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act that the administrative authorities are not deprived of their jurisdiction by rejecting the prayer once for making reference to the Industrial Tribunal and they can always make the reference Hater on even though earlier the view taken was against making a reference. ;