The petitioners are the land owners of village Ahloo, Kalakee, Tehsil and District Lahore and their land is irrigated through Outlet No. 98240/R Buchar Kahan Disty. Respondent No. 3 is also the land owner but her land was affiliated with Outlet No. 93190-R. She moved an application for change of Outlet, in respect of irrigating of her land measuring 34 acres. This application was allowed by the Divisional Canal Officer, by his order dated 28-5-1978, which was confirmed by the Superintending Canal Officer on 14-2-1980. Accordingly, her land was attached to Outlet No. 98240-R.
2. The validity of the orders passed by the. Canal authorities has been impugned by the petitioners on a variety of grounds but the one which alone is sufficient to dispose of this writ petition rests on section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act. It is contended that before passing the impugned orders, except petitioner No. 5, none of the other petitioners was served with any notice as required by section 20.
3. I have heard the petitioner---s learned counsel and so also the Sub---Divisional Canal Officer, who appeared on behalf of the Department. The record produced by the latter, has also been examined. Respondent No. 3 has not entered appearance despite service. She has been, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
4. It is to be seen that under section 20, before disposing of an applica--tion for change of source of water supply, a notice of such application has got to be served on all the interested persons. The procedure for service of notice is laid down in the rules framed under the Act. Rule 79-D, ordains that every summons or notice which is required to be served, shall be delivered or communicated personally to the person concerned failing which, to his recognized agent and if he too is not available to any male member residing with him. If personal service is not possible or refused, then under rule 79-E, a copy of the summons or notice has to be communi--cated to the person concerned by posting him a copy thereof at his usual or last known place of residence.
5. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that only petitioner No. 5 was personally served. As regards, others, there is a report of the process server that a proclamation has been made and that copy of the notice affixed in a Chowk. It is not discernible from the record that any effort was trade to serve the remaining petitioners personally, or by post or that they refused the notices. In these circumstances, service by proclamation and affixture cannot be sustained. Furthermore, in case of service, other than personal service the officer authorized to issue the processes, in contempla--tion of rule 79-I, had to satisfy himself by examining the process server or otherwise, that the service was duly made, in accordance with the Rules. The record before me, does not suggest that this requirement was com--plied with.
6: I entertain no doubt that the petitioners were not duly served and the requirements of the Rules are not at all satisfied in this case. It can C hardly be disputed that under section 20, a valid service of the interested persons, is the condition precedent for sustenance of the orders of the Depart-- mental authorities. Upon the present record, the official representing the Department, did not have much to urge id support of the service of the notices on the petitioners and to defend the impugned orders. Thus the impugned orders shall have to be struck down.
7. This writ petition is, therefore, accepted and the impugned orders declared to have been passed without lawful authority. It shall be open to the Departmental authorities to pass afresh orders, in accordance with law, on the respondent's application, after serving the petition.
The parties are left to bear their own costs.