20. Supply of water through intervening watercourse. Whenever application is made to a Divisional Canal Officer for supply of water from a canal and it appears to him expedient that such supply should be given and that it should be conveyed through some existing water-course, he shall give notice to the persons responsible for the maintenance of such water-course to show cause, on a day not less than fourteen days from the date of such notice why the said supply should not be so conveyed; and after making enquiry on such day, the Divisional Canal Officer shall determine whether and on what condition the said received supply be conveyed through such water-course.
When such officer determines that a supply of canal water may be conveyed through any water-course as aforesaid his decision shall when confirmed or modified by the Superintending Canal Officer be binding on the applicant and also on the persons responsible for the maintenance of the said water-course.
Such applicant shall not be entitled to use such water-course until he has paid the expense of any alteration of such water-course necessary in order to his being supplied through it, and also such share of the first cost of such water-course as the Divisional or Superintending Canal Officer may determine.
Such applicant shall also be liable for his share of the cost of maintenance of such water-course so long as he uses it.
1. Supply of water through an intervening watercourse
2. Mandatory that order should be announced.
3. Act of determination of cost.
4. Foremost consideration Is better Irrigation.
5. Distinguishing feature between canal and water-course.
6. Proceedings by D.C.O.
7. Existing outlet.
8. Applicability to supply of water.
9. Shifting of existing outlet.
10. Irrigation for first time.
11. Opening of outlet.
12. Application under.
13. Failure to announce decision.
14. Area provided during consolidation.
15. Prosecution for allowing other to take water.
16. Claim under.
17. Section not attracted to case of extension of water-course.
18. Change of alignment.
1. Supply of water through an intervening watercourse. Section 20 covers up a situation of supplying of water through on intervening watercourse. Section 30-A, 30-B and 30-C cover up a matter of a scheme providing for the construction, alteration etc. of a water-course as also the areas to be served by it, its lining and of any other matter which is necessary for the purpose of maintenance and distribution of supply of water from a watercourse. None of these section cover up the case of a canal. Section 3 (1) of the Act defines canal to include, amongst others, all canals, channels and water-courses, as defined in sub-clause (2) of Section 3(1). Water-course in the sad sub-section has been defined to mean any channel which if supplied water from a canal, but which is not maintained at the cost of the State Government and all subsidiary works belonging to any such channel. Thus the distinguishing feature between a canal and a water-course is that a canal is maintained at State expense and so may be a water-course, but a water-course which is not maintained at the cost of the State Government would be a water-course to which the provisions of Section 20, 30-A, 30-B and 33-C of the Act would apply. A Division Bench of the High Court in Kundan Lal v. the Divisional Canal Officer and others. 1968 PLJ 324, had taken the view that from the definition of the words canal and watercourse appearing in the Act, it would appear that whereas all watercourses are canals, every canal is not a watercourse. It was further observed that whereas a canal may be maintained by private persons or may be maintained at the cost of the State Government. With regard to an outlet, it was observed that it was a contrivance constructed in a canal from which water is supplied in a smaller canal and that there was nothing in the Act to indicate that an outlet must like a watercourse e maintained at the cost of the private persons.
Madan Lal v. Chief Engineer, Canals, 1983 (1) LLR 499=83 PLJ 1=83 RLJ 233.
2. Mandatory that order should be announced. Under Section 20 read with rule 2 of the Rules it is mandatory that the order should be announced by the Divisional Canal Officer so that the right holders may be able to file the objections before the Superintending Canal Officer, In case, the order is not announced, no further proceedings can be taken and, therefore, the subsequent proceedings will become illegal. It has been held in Captain Charan Singh and otehrs v. The Superintending Engineer, Upper Bari Doab Circle, Amritsar and others, 1961 PLR 636, that under Rule 2 of the Rules, framed under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, the Divisional Canal Officer has to announce his decision to the parties interested. It is further observed that failure to announce and convey his decision by the Divisional Canal Officer or Superintending Canal Officer is a material defect. For the reasons given, the impugned orders are illegal and without jurisdiction.
Virsa singh and Ors. v. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle and Ors., 1982 LLR 666=76PLJ 58.
3. Act of determination of cost. The requirement of section 20 of the Act for the determination of the first cost of the water-course and payment of share by the applicant only arises after use of the water-course has been sanctioned by the Divisional Canal Officer and confirmed by the Superintending Canal Officer in favour of such applicant. The act of determination of the cost and the payment of its share has nothing to do with the order sanctioning the use of the water-course which in fat must precede such determination. The decision cited by the learned counsel has also not relevancy to the facts of the present case as there the relief claimed was to refrain the Canal Authorities from making certain recoveries in pursuance of the impugned order. Obviously, the relief of injunction could not be granted unless the impugned order was successfully challenged and declared void.
Bharat Singh v. The Union of India, 1982 LLR 644 = 76 PLJ 519.
4. Foremost consideration Is better irrigation. The most consideration before the Canal Authorities is better irrigation and the goal is towards best irrigation. If an attempt is one direction towards better irrigation has failed, there is no reason why another attempt towards better irrigation cannot be resorted to. The High Court failed to see how the Canal Divisional Officer could not redress the grievances of the right-holders when they had complained to him that the shifting of the site of the outlet at R.D. 196240-R was unsatisfactory and working to their detriment. And even otherwise in the instant case, the High Court found even there is no review involved for the site of the outlet was not restored to its original place i.e. at R.D. 198000-R. Thus, in substance, it means that the outlet was shifted from one to another place and from another to still another place. Neither on principle nor on common sense, can such a measure be called a review.
Hazari Lal v. Supdt. Canal Officer, 1983 (2) LLR 177 = 83 PLJ 274 = 83 RLR 273 = 83 SLJ 339.
5. Distinguishing feature between canal and water-course. The distinguishing feature between a canal and a water-course is that a canal is maintained at State Expense and so may be a watercourse, but a water-course which is not maintained at the cost of the State Government would be a watercourse to which the provisions of Section 20, 30-A, 30-B and 30-C of the said Act would apply.. Now here the fall is to be constructed by the State Government at its cost and in its channel which is a canal for the purposes of the Act. It is nobodys case that the channel is maintained by private persons, much less the petitioners. The channel belonging to the State Government and structure sought to be raised therein being at its expense the channel and the contrivance do not fall within the meaning of the term water-course, as know to the Act. And if that is so, none of the provisions of section 20, 30-A, 30-B and 30-C of the Act would be applicable as invoked by the petitioners.
Avtar Singh and Ors. v. Superintending Canal Officer, 1983 (1) LLR 503 = 83 PLJ 137.
6. Proceedings by D.C.O. The proceedings can be undertaken by the Divisional Canal Officer on a day which is separated from the date of the service on the persons concerned by not less than 14 days.
Karnail Singh v. The Superintending Engineer, Upper Bari Doab Canal Officer, 1967 cur. LJ 617 = 69 PLR 670.
7. Existing Outlet. Section 20 does not authorise either the opening or closing or reduction in size of existing outlet.
Kudan Lal v. The Divisional Canal Officer, 1968 PLJ 324.
8. Applicability to supply of water. Section 20 is applicable to supply of water through existing water-course.
Jaswant Lal v. Superintending Engineer, Western Jumna Canal, Rohtak, 68 PLR 945.
9. Shifting of existing outlet. Section 20 of the Act does not vest authority in the Divisional Canal Officer or indeed any other authority appointed under the Act to shut an existing outlet and shifting it to another position on the canal.
Manjit Singh v. The Superintending Engineer, Upper Bari Doab Circle, Amritsar, AIR 1964 Punjab 464=ILR (1964) 2 Punjab 1 = 66 RLR 495 = 1964 Cur. LJ 235.
10. Irrigation for first time. Where a landowner wants irrigation for his land for the first term, he has to make an application under Section 20.
Partap Singh v. Midha Singh, AIR 1974 Punjab 227 = 1973 PLJ 73 = 76 PLR 1 = 1974 Cur. LJ 156.
11. Opening of outlet. Nothing in the Act to prevent the Divisional Canal Officer from opening other outlet.
Jit Singh v. The State, 1965 Cur. LJ 554.
12. Application under. Section 20 contemplates an application from a person who has not hitherto been receiving water from a canal.
Tek Chand v. State of Haryana, 1968 PLJ 47 = ILR (1968) 1 Punjab 292 = 70 PLR 386.
13. Failure to announce decision. Failure to announce decision is a material defect.
Captain Chanan Singh v. The Superintending Engineer, Upper Bari Doab Circle, Amritsar, 63 PLR 636.
14. Area provided during consolidation. The area for the digging of this water-course was demarcated or provided for during the consolidation proceedings and the canal authorities have obviously nothing to do with the providing of this area for that purpose. They are only utilising that area by digging a water-course is being dug through his land is totally baseless. Similarly, the action of the Divisional Canal Officer in asking the subordinate authorities to dig the water-course at the spot, is apparently not taken under the sections. This also is the firm stand of the respondent authorities. According to them, they have ordered neither for the supply of water through any intervening watercourse as envisaged by Section 20 nor for the restoration of any demolished water-course, as envisaged by Section 30-FF. Similarly the Divisional Canal Officer has not ordered the construction or providing of a new watercourse for purpose of irrigating the lands of the owners concerned. He has merely asked the subordinate authorities to dig up the watercourse in the area demarcated for the said purpose by the consolidation authorities which are, does not belong to the appellant. The High Court thus finds that the action of the Divisional Canal Officer as referred to in Annexure C is not in any way violative of any rule or principle.
Sajjan Singh v. Mukand Singh & Ors., 1985 (1) LLR 98 = 85 PLJ 506.
15. Prosecution for allowing other to take water. A person who allows another to take water from the water course running through his field is liable to prosecution if he has done so without the consent of Superintending Canal Officer.
Moola Singh V. Surindra Singh, 1960 CLJ 1388.
16. Claim under. Only claim under the Section for supply of water conveyed through existing water course can be considered.
Kundan Lal v. The Divisional Canal Officer and others, 1968 PLJ 324.
17. Section not attracted to case of extension of watercourse. Section 20 of the Act is not attracted to the case of extension of watercourse though it does deal with the supply of water through some existing watercourse. In case of supply of water through extension of watercourse recourse has to be had to the provisions contained in Section 30-A to 30-F of the Act.
Nazar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1981 LLR 638.
18. Change of alignment. Section 20 of the Act is not applicable in the present case because the alignment of the watercourse itself has been changed. Under the aforesaid section only the landowners can be given rights to as the existing watercourse.
Sajjan Singh v. Mukand Singh and Ors., 1980 LLR 299 = 80 PLJ 283 = 80 RLR 427.
23. Application for transfer of existing watercourse. Any person desiring that an existing watercourse should be transferred from its present owner to himself, may apply in writing to the Divisional Canal Officer,
(1) that he has endeavored unsuccessfully to procure and transfer from the owner of such watercourse;
(2) that he desires that the said Canal Officer, in his behalf and at his cost, to do all things necessary for procuring such transfer.
(3) that he is able to defray the cost of such transfer.
Procedure thereupon. If the Divisional Canal Officer considers
(a) that the said transfer is necessary for the better management of the irrigation from such watercourse ; and
(b) that the statements in the application are true, he shall call upon the applicant to make such deposit as the Divisional Canal Officer considers necessary to defray the cost of the preliminary proceedings, and the amount of any compensation that may become due under the provisions of section twenty-eight in respect of such transfer;
and upon such deposit being made, he shall publish a notice of the application in every village, and shall send a copy of the notice to the Collector of every district through which watercourse passes.
1. Acceptance of Scheme.
1. Acceptance of Scheme. It is correct that the Superintending Canal Officer has observed that the order to the Divisional Canal Officer against which the appeal had been filed, appeared to be justified, however, he (Superintending Canal Officer) still thought it proper, that the matter be decided by the Divisional Canal Officer fresh. In pursuance of that order, the matter was again taken up by the Divisional Canal and on 21st March, 1970, an order was passed by which it was decided to retain the outlet at its present site at R.D. 31735-R, with the result that the effect of the order of the Divisional Canal Officer is that the earlier scheme which provided the shifting of the supply of canal water to outlet No. 34490-R was not approved or, in other words, the scheme shifting the supply of canal water to outlet No. R.D. 34490-R was rejected. It was against that order of the Divisional Canal Officer that Mohinder Parkash Sharma and another filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal, on which the impugned order was passed. From the perusal of that order, it is quite weident that the Superintending Canal Officer has made certain changes which has resulted in the acceptance of the scheme with certain modifications, which had been rejected by the Divisional Canal Officer. This could not legally be done in view of the Division Bench Judgement of this Court in Dalip Singhs case. In this view of the matter, the order of the Superintending Canal Officer dated 22nd. May, 1970 (Copy Annexure D to the writ petition) by which the scheme was accepted with certain modifications cannot legally be sustained.
Ishwar Dayal v. The Superintending Canal Officer & Ors. 1986 (1) LLR 262-86 (1) CCJ 12 = 85 RLR 383 = 85 (1) PLR 453.
24. Objections to transfer applied. Within twenty-one days from the publication of a notice under section 23, any person interested in the watercourse to which the notice refers may apply to the Collector by petition stating, his objection to the transfer for which application has been made.
The Collector may either reject the petition or may proceed to inquire into the validity of the objection giving previous notice to the Divisional Canal Officer of the place and time at which such inquiry will be held.
The Collector shall record in writing all orders passed by him under his section, and the ground thereof.
25. When applicant may be placed in occupation. If no such objection is made, or (where such objection is made), if the Collector over-rules it, he shall give notice to divisional Canal Officer to that effect, and shall proceed forthwith to place the said applicant in occupation of the watercourse to be transferred.
Such decision shall be final, and the Collector, if he is so directed by such decision, shall, subject to the provisions of section twenty-eight, cause the said applicant to be placed in occupation of the watercourse to be transferred.
28. Expenses to be paid by applicant before receiving occupation. No such applicant shall be placed in occupation of such watercourse until he has paid to the person named by the Collector such amount as the Collector determines to be due as compensation for the watercourse so transferred, together with all expenses incidental to such transfer.
Procedure in fixing compensation. In determining the compensation to be made under this section, the Collector shall proceed under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1870, but he may if the person to be compensation so desire award such compensation in the form of a rent charge payable in respect of the watercourse transferred.
Recovery of compensation and expenses. If such compensation and expenses are not paid when demanded by the person entitled to receive the same, the amount may be recovered by the Collector as if it were an arrear of land revenue and shall, when recovered be paid by him to the person entitled to receive the same.
29. Condition binding on applicant placed in occupation of water- course. When any such applicant is placed in occupation of a watercourse as aforesaid the following rules and conditions shall be binding on him and his representatives in interest: -
First. All works necessary for the passage across such watercourse existing previous to its construction and of the drainage intercepted by it, and for affording proper communications across it for the connivance of the neighboring lands, shall be constructed by the applicant, and be maintained by him or his representative in interest to the satisfaction of the Divisional Canal Officer.
Second. Land occupied for the watercourse shall be used only for the purpose of such watercourse.
In case in which a watercourse is transferred on the terms of a rent charge.
Third. the applicant or his representative in interest shall, so long as he occupies such watercourse pay rent for the same at such rate and on such days as are determined by the Collector when the applicant is placed in occupation.
Fourth. The Collector may, on the application of the person entitled to receive such rent or compensation, determine the amount of rent due or assess the amount of such compensation ; and if such rent or compensation be not paid by the applicant or his representative in interest, the Collector may recover the amount with interest thereon at the rate of six percent per annum from the date on which it became due, as if it where an arrear of land revenue, and shall pay the same, when recovered, to the person to whom it is due.
If any of the rules and conditions prescribed by this section are not complied with, or
If any watercourse transferred under this Act, is discussed for three years continuously by the right of the applicant, or of his representative in interest, to occupy such watercourse shall cease absolutely.
30-A. Preparation of Draft Scheme.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in this Act and subject to the rules prescribed by the State Government in this behalf the Divisional Canal Officer may on his own motion or on the application of a shareholder prepare a draft scheme to provide for all or any of the matters namely : -
(a) the construction, alternation , extension and alignment of any watercourse or re-alignment of any existing watercourse :
(b) reallotment of areas served by one watercourse to another :
(c) the lining of any watercourse ;
(cc) the occupation of land for the deposit of soil from watercourse clearances;
(d) any other mater which is necessary which is necessary for the proper maintenance and distribution of supply of water from a watercourse.
(2) Every scheme prepared under sub-section (1) shall amongst other matters, set out the estimated cost thereof, the alignment of the proposed watercourse or re-alignment of the existing watercourse, as the case may be the site of the outlet, the particulars of the shareholder to be benefited and other persons who may be affected thereby, and a sketch plan of the area proposed to be covered by the scheme.
1. Order passed without hearing.
2. Order without jurisdiction.
3. Preparation of scheme.
4. Approval of scheme.
5. Applicability of provision.
6. Construction of watercourse.
7. Chief engineer Powers.
8. Preparation of draft scheme for construction.
9. Closure of opening of existing outlet.
10. Order passed without hearing.
11. Compensation for land.
12. Challenge to order in writ jurisdiction.
13. Change in size of outlet.
14. Order whether revisable.
15. Watercourse not sanctioned.
16. Aggrieved person.
17. Scheme relating to irrigation.
18. Power of review.
19. Revision Competency of.
20. Revision Publication.
21. Sanction of watercourse.
23. Alteration of previous order.
24. Local adjustment.
25. Publication of Scheme.
26. Decision made on basis of sanction.
27. any other matter.
28. Non-publication of Sketch Plan.
29. Non-speaking order.
30. Right to approve scheme.
31. Framing of draft scheme.
32. Re-allotment of entire-area.
33. Order providing for Pucca Naka.
34. Order passed after receiving approval Effect.
35. Absence of party during measurements.
36. Preparation of scheme.
37. Suo motu interference.
38. Assistance from Subordinate Staff.
1. Order passed without hearing. The order, in the form of communication addressed to the Divisional Canal Officer, was passed without hearing the petitioners who were interested parties. This order is liable to be set aside on this ground.
Jarnail Singh v. Superintending Engineer, 1982 LLR 399.
2. Order without jurisdiction. Order wholly without jurisdiction cannot be sustained even in view of petitioners consent.
Ishar Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1970 PLJ 394 = 72 PLR 478.
3. Preparation of scheme. Preparation of the scheme cannot possibly rule out the processing by the office including collecting of applications and necessary data to be placed before the Divisional Canal Officer for his consideration who was to hear the objections.
Pat Ram v. State of Haryana , 1969 PLJ 143.
4. Approval of scheme. The Divisional Canal Officer has the exclusive jurisdiction to approve a scheme under the Act and the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to interfere with the same. Since the scheme with regard to Khasra No. 58 5/2 and 57/11 was sanctioned after hearing the parties and the remaining Khasra numbers were added without hearing them, the decree granted by the Courts below is fully justified.
Jogi Ram v. State of Haryana. 1982 LLR 354 = 1982 PLJ 71.
5. Applicability of provisions. It is clear from the record that the area which has been ordered to be transferred was culturable commanded area and was being commanded from outlet No. RD-10863-L In this view of the matter, the provisions of Section 30-A of the Act would be applicable.
Nihala Singh alias Nihala v. Superintending Canal Officer, Western Jamna Canal, West Circle, Rohtak & Ors. 1982 LLR 647 = 1978 PLJ 141.
6. Construction of water course. If any person wishes to have a water course constructed, the only remedy available to him is to move the canal authorities under the Act.
Bhalla Ram v. Divisional Canal Officer, Karnal Division, 1970 PLJ 191-72 PLR 443.
7. Chief Engineer Powers. Chief Engineer does not weild any authority nor enjoys any power under the Act.
Natha Singh v. Chief Engineer, Central, Punjab Irrigation, 1969 PLJ 218.
8. Preparatio of draft scheme for construction. Section 30-A provides for the preparation of a draft scheme for the construction, alteration, extension and alignment of any water-course or realignment of any existing water-course.
Inder Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1970 PLJ 36 = 72 PLR 20.
9. Closure of opening of existing outlet. Closure of the opening or the shifting of an existing outlet would certainly be such a matter in appropriate case.
Piyare Lal v. The State of Punjab, 1966 Cur. LJ 3 = 1966-68 PLR Supp. 491= ILR (1966) 2 Punjab 330.
10. Order passed without hearing. Order passed without hearing the parties concerned falls under the category of a void order.
Dassu v. The Superintending Canal Officer, Rohtak, 1969 PLJ 581.
11. Compensation for land. Whether the watercourse can be constructed through the land of the petitioners without its acquisition by the State. Section 30-D of the Act specifically provides that if a watercourse is constructed through the land of any person. The same shall be acquired and the owner shall be paid compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Even the State has not denied that the petitioners are not entitled to the compensation. It is, however, pleaded that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have given some land to the petitioners. The details of the land which is alleged to have been given to them have not been mentioned in the written statement. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are alleged to have given the land, have not filed any return. No land could be transferred by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the petitioners except by a registered document. No registered document has been produced by the State to show that some land had been given to them in lieu of the land which is being taken for constructing watercourse. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that any land had been given to the petitioners in lieu of the land taken from them. In this situation, construction of a watercourse by the State through the land of the petitioners is illegal, unless it is acquired in accordance with the provisions of Section 30-D of the Act.
Jarnail Singh and Ors. v. Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal, Circle Ludhiana and Ors. 1982 LLR 680=1980 PLJ 200 = 1980 RLR 338.
12. Challenge to order in writ jurisdiction. The petitioners are before the High court in writ proceedings. They can challenge the order of the appellate authority on the grounds which they had taken before it. The appellate authority on the grounds which they had taken before it. The High Court has carefully gone through the order of the Superintending Canal Officer. There they challenged the order of the Divisional Canal Officer on two grounds, namely, the watercourse be not allowed through their land as they would suffer immensely and secondly that their water-courses from the tubewells installed in their fields would be disrupted if the watercourse was approved. The Superintending Canal Officer took into consideration both the objections and rejected them. He inter alia stated that they would be paid all the cost of land which was coming under the watercourse. Regarding the valuation of the principals of natural justice he said that the notices were duly served on them and if they did not raise objections, the scheme could not be set aside on this ground. The reasons given by him are forceful and do not require interference.
Mam Raj v. Superintending Canal Officer Ambala, Bhakra Canal circle, Chandigarh, 1982 LLR 683.
13. Change in size of outlet. The authorities can make a change in the size of an outlet only under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 30-A of the Act. For making any such change, it is necessary that a scheme should be framed as envisaged by sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 30-A of the Act. Admittedly, no such scheme was prepared in this case. As such the action of the Divisional Canal Officer reducing the size of the outlet by 25% and approval thereto of the Superintending Canal Officer are clearly without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
Dalip Singh & Ors V. State of Punjab & Ors., 1982 LLR 685 = 1980 PLJ 321 = 1980 RLR 492.
14. Order whether revisable. It is not disputed that the order dated 14th April, 1970 of the Superintending Canal Officer allowing the revision of defendant No.2 and remanding the case to the Divisional Canal Officer is without jurisdiction because the initial order of the Divisional Canal Officer in rejecting the application of defendants No. 2-27 regarding shifting of the outlet was not revisable. The contention of the learned appellants counsel nevertheless is that the Divisional Canal Officer was competent to pass an order regarding the shifting of the outlet and as such the order dated 28th December, 1970 passed by him consequent upon the remand of the case cannot be considered to be without jurisdiction. This argument appears to have no merit. No doubt, the Divisional Canal Officer was entitled under Section 30-A of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act on his own motion or on the application of the share-holder to prepare a draft scheme in order to change an outlet, but in the instant case, the impugned order dated 28th December 1970 was neither passed by him on his motion by preparing a draft scheme nor on the application of any shareholder. He had passed this order in consequence of the case remanded to him by the Superintending Canal Officer. Thus when the order of remand itself was without jurisdiction, any order passed in pursuance thereof by the Divisional Canal Officer is equally bad in law.
Bir Singh and Anv. V. Dharam Pal & Anr., 1983 (2) LLR 312.
15. Water-course not sanctioned. If the water course is not a sanctioned water course than no right exists to carry water through that water-course and there is no question of restoration of demolished watercourse by the Canal Authorities unless te user had acquired easement rights to carry water through the non-sanctioned water-course. The Canal Authorities rightly following the procedure under Section 30-A formulated two schemes and invited objections thereto and one that was considered was adopted and sanctioned. No fault can be fond with the same.
Mange Ram v. Superintending Canal Officer, 1984 (4) LLR 294 (2).
16. Aggrieved person. Roop Singh admittedly was a co-sharer of Malkiat Singh and Surjit Singh had he participated in the proceedings before the Divisional Canal Officer and supported the petitioners. Roop Singhs case is that during that period, partition took place and the land was allotted to him in family settlement. Consequently, he filed an appeal which was accepted. It is evident from the record that Roop Singh had a right in the land as a co-sharer and he participated in the proceedings. Therefore, he had a right to file an appeal being an aggrieved person.
Mandan Lal v. Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Circle, Ludhiana, 1984 (1) LLR 340.
17. Scheme relating to irrigation. A scheme relating to irrigation through a water-course is bound in the very nature of things to include the outlet from which the water-course is to receive water and it is difficult to conceive that the Legislatiure should have made no provision in that behalf.
Mohan Singh v. The Divisional Canal Officer, 1969 PLR 204.
18. Power of review. No power of review has been conferred on the Superintending Engineer.
Gajjan Singh v. The State of Punjab, ILR (1968) 1 Punjab 53 = 1969 PLR 395.
19. Revision competency of. A revision is only permitted under sub-section (3) of Section 30-B in regard to a scheme published under Section 30 C.
Dalip Singh v. The Superintending Canal Officer, West Circle, Rohtak, ILR (1969) 1 Punjab 267.
20. Revision Publication Revision effected scheme does not require publication.
Sahib Dhan v. Superintending Engineer, Western Jamuna Canal, Rohtak, 1968 PLJ 156 = 70 PLR 32 S.N. = ILR (1968) 2 Punjab 367.
21. Sanction of water-course. S.C.O. has no jurisdiction to sanction water-course.
Chuhar Singh v. The Superintendent Canal Officer, 1970 PLJ 216.
22. Appeal. No appeal lies against rejected application for providing water-course.
Chuhar Singh v. This Superintending Canal Officer, 1970 PLJ 216.
23 Alternation of previous order. S.C.O. has no right to rehear, review, alter or vary his previous order.
Nand Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer, 1969 Cur. LJ 48 = 71 PLR 150.
24. Local adjustments. Section 30 A applies to local adjustments.
Nand Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1973 PLJ 22 = 75 PLR 357 = 1973 Cur. LJ 151.
25. Publication of scheme. Publication of scheme is sine qua non for approval.
Bir Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1974 PLJ 162 = 1974 Rev. LR 358.