Law:

Section:

(a) Tawan---   Many of irrigators received information about tawan imposed on whole body of irrigators---Limitation---Whether each individual can demand his right of appeal from the date on which he is individually served.   (b) Tawan---   Duties of Divisional Canal Officer in tawan cases, explained.     ORDER   The petitioner was one of the persons against whom the Divisional Canal Officer passed an order imposing Tawan. He and other persons put in an appeal before the Deputy Commis sioner who dismissed it in exercise of powers as Commissioner, on the ground that it was time-barred.   The Commissioner's argument is that when many of the irrigators had received information about the Tawan imposed on the whole body of irrigators, each individual irrigator cannot demand that his right of appeal will depend on the date on which he is individually served. This argument is not justified in law. The present petitioner was never served by the Irrigation Branch. He can, therefore, say that his period of limitation had not expired before he put in his appeal.   On merits, the petitioner has not got a very good case. The outlet was found damaged by the scraping of the crest so that the 'Y' was increased from 1.05 to 1.14 feet. This was on 29-9-51.   The Divisional Canal Officer has imposed a penalty equal to a single assessment of crop rates only thus, the penalty must be considered to have been imposed in a lenient manner.   There are a few odd circumstances in this case. One of them is that the overseer…