Skip to content


Prithi Raj Vs. the Superintending Canal Officer and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petition No. 795 of 1988
Judge
Reported in(1992)101PLR473
ActsNorthern India Canals and Drainage Act, 1873 - Sections 30A; Constitution of India - Articles 225 and 227
AppellantPrithi Raj
RespondentThe Superintending Canal Officer and anr.
Appellant Advocate A.K. Chopra, Adv.; Arihant Jain, Adv.
Respondent Advocate S.C. Khunger, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order......to him vide order dated september 24, 1986 passed by the divisional canal officer on a petition by shri banwari lal son of bhajan lal. the petitioner's appeal against the order of the divisions canal officer has been rejected without adverting to the merits of the controversy.2. a perusal of the order dated may 27, 1987 passed by the superintending canal officer shows that a direction for the issue of a notice to banwari lal son of shri har lal was given and the case was fixed for hearing on february 5, 1987. however, without service of notice on banwari lal son of shri har lal the matter was disposed of and the petitioner's appeal was dismissed.3. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, i find that the order passed by the superintending canal officer.....
Judgment:

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner maintains that in spite of the claim of Shri Banwari Lal son of Har Lal having been expressly turned down in the order dated November 16, 1984 by the Superintending Canal Office, the requisite relief has been given to him vide order dated September 24, 1986 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer on a petition by Shri Banwari Lal son of Bhajan Lal. The petitioner's appeal against the order of the Divisions Canal Officer has been rejected without adverting to the merits of the controversy.

2. A perusal of the order dated May 27, 1987 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer shows that a direction for the issue of a notice to Banwari Lal son of Shri Har Lal was given and the case was fixed for hearing on February 5, 1987. However, without service of notice on Banwari Lal son of Shri Har Lal the matter was disposed of and the petitioner's appeal was dismissed.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer cannot be sustained. The implications of the order dated November 16, 1984 having not been considered by the Superintending Canal Officer while deciding the appeal of the petitioner, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice if the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after hearing all concerned, including Banwari Lal son of Shri Har Lal.

4. Accordingly, the order dated May 27, 1987 is set aside The case is remanded to the Superintending Canal Officer for a fresh decision after hearing all concerned, including Shri Banwari Lal son of Shri Har Lal. Till the matter is finally disposed of by the Super intending Canal Officer, status quo as existing today shall be maintained.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //