AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajender Nath Mittal, J.—Briefly, the facts are that respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who are tenants of Jagat Singh, respondent No. 5, made an application before the Divisional Canal Officer, respondent No. 1, for providing them with a watercourse to irrigate their lands. A scheme was prepared u/s 30-A of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, hereinafter called the Act, wherein the proposed water course was shown as ABCD. The petitioner had no objection to the said watercourse. The Divisional Canal Officer, however, sanctioned another watercourse LMB by amending the original watercourse ABCD, vide his order dated 26th August, 1980, copy Annexure P.2 The petitioner went up in appeal against that order to the Superintending Canal Officer, respondent No. 2, who affirmed the same on 25th February, 1981, copy Annexure P.3. He has challenged the aforesaid orders inter alia on the ground that the Divisional Canal Officer could not change the alignment of the watercourse absolutely u/s 30-B of the Act but could make modifications in the given scheme.
It is contended by Mr. Khunger, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Divisional Canal Officer could not modify the watercourse, ABCD prescribed in the scheme so as to change its character altogether. According to him, Divisional Canal Officer could make slight chances in the scheme. He has further urged that the petitioner raised specific objection regarding watercourse LMB but the Divisional Canal Officer, after having obtained the consent of the owner of the land regarding the new watercourse, observed in the judgment that it had been provided with the consent of the parties. According to him no such consent was obtained from the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that change of any nature can be made in the proposed scheme by the Divisional Canal Officer u/s 30-B. They argue that there was even no major change in the outlet sanctioned by him. They next submit that the order was passed by the Divisional Canal Officer on the basis of consent and, therefore, this court, in its writ jurisdiction, should not interfere with it.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. I, however, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner A new scheme is prepared u/s 30-A and given publicity u/s 30-B(1) of the Act Thereafter objections Against it are heard u/s 30-B(2), which authorises the Divisional Canal Officer to accept, reject or modify the scheme after considering them. The aforesaid sub-section, reads as follows:-
30-B(2). The Divisional Canal Officer may, after considering the objections and suggestions, if any, approve, modify or reject the scheme.
In the present case, the Divisional Canal Officer neither approved nor rejected but modified the scheme. The question arises as to whether the change made by him can be called modification of the scheme. The word ''modify'' has not been defined in the Act. According to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, Third Edition, the word ''modify'' means ''to make partial changes in''. In the Webster''s Third New International Dictionary, 1966 Edition, it has been defined, ''to make minor changes in the form of structure of. It is a settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the words of statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meanings. Therefore, the word ''modify'' in the section means to make fractional or partial changes
The map annexed with the writ petition shows that earlier (sic) watercourse was provided along the alignment ABCD which (sic) West to East. Now, it has bees sanctioned along the (sic) which proceeds from North to South. Thus, by no stretch (sic) it can be said that there is a partial alteration in (sic) On the other hand, it appears to be a totally different (sic) orders of the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer are, therefore, liable to be set aside on this ground.
Regarding the consent of the petitioner, it is evident from the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, Annexure P.1, that the petitioner, his brother Sajjan Ram and some others raised the objection regarding alignment. The Divisional Canal Officer observed in the order that both the parties had made their statements that the watercourse be sanctioned along LMB. The petitioner has challenged that no such statement was made by him. The counsel for the respondents have not shown to me any such statement. It is not disputed that the statement of Jagat Singh landowner was recorded by the Divisional Canal Officer. In case his statement was recorded, there was no reason as to why the statement of the petitioner was not recorded by him. That shows that the petitioner did not agree to the new alignment as contended to by the learned counsel for the respondents. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the respondents.
For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the writ petition with costs and quash the impugned order. The respondents may, however, decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties. Counsel fee Rs. 200/-.