Judgment AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JUDGE This appeal has been filed laying challenge to the order dated 20.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellants, praying for quashing of the order dated 30.1.2007 passed by Superintending Canal Officer, respondent No.1, reviewing his earlier order dated 20.11.2006. It is the contention of counsel for the appellants that the Superintending Canal Officer (respondent No.1) has no power to review his own order under Section 30A or Section 30B of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 (for short, “Canal Act”). In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon two judgments of this Court i.e. Nand Singh and others Vs. Superintending Canal Officer and others, 1969 PLR 150 and Sube Singh and others Vs. The Superintending Engineer and others, 1983 PLJ 351 . It is his submission that as per Rule 87 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Rules, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as “Canal Rules”), notice of the date and place fixed about hearing of the appeal has to be given to the appellants as also to every other party to the case whose interest is opposed to that of the appellants only. The Superintending Canal Officer, while passing the impugned order dated 30.1.2007, has reviewed his earlier order dated 20.11.2006, vide which he had upheld the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot, on an appeal preferred by the co-sharers of private respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the ground that they were not served in the said appeal. His contention is that all the cosharers, who have common interest with the appellants, are not required to be served when they have not preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, which, according to the appellants, is against them. The cosharers, who have accepted the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, cannot be said to be required to be served under Rule 87 of the Canal Rules as the interest is not opposed to that of the appellants. He further placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Biru Vs. Suraj Bhan, 1983 PLR 568 to contend that all the cosharers are not required to be impleaded or served and represented in the proceedings nor are they required to be served individually. He further placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Biru Vs. Suraj Bhan, 1983 PLR 568 to contend that all the cosharers are not required to be impleaded or served and represented in the proceedings nor are they required to be served individually. He, on this basis, contends that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable and deserves to be set-aside. Prayer has also been made to allow the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 30.1.2007 (Annexure P6 appended with the writ petition) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, respondent No.1. On the other hand, counsel for private respondent Nos.3 and 4 has referred to Section 30B of the Canal Act to contend that the Superintending Canal Officer has the power to review even its own decision either suomotu at any time or on an application moved by a person aggrieved by the scheme or the revised scheme approved by the Divisional Canal Officer. The only requirement is that the person likely to be affected should be afforded an opportunity of being heard. He, on this basis, contends that since respondent Nos.3 and 4 were the persons who were aggrieved by the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, allowing the application submitted by the appellants vide order dated 31.3.2006, hearing was mandated to be given to respondent Nos.3 and 4, although the appeal was not preferred by them but by the cosharers of these respondents. He further admits that no application/appeal was preferred by these respondents against the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer. He, however, supports the requirement of effecting service upon all the cosharers in the appeal, whether an appeal is preferred by them or not before the Superintending Canal Officer whenever an appeal/revision is to be decided. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Nathu and others Vs. Bhagwana and others, 1975 P.L.J. 200 to contend that the Superintending Canal Officer has the power of review. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Suraj Mal and others Vs. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Nathu and others Vs. Bhagwana and others, 1975 P.L.J. 200 to contend that the Superintending Canal Officer has the power of review. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Suraj Mal and others Vs. The Superintending Canal Officer, Western Jumna Canal, West Circle, Rohtak and another, 1980 P.L.J. 469 to contend that service of notice has to be effected upon the aggrieved party as per Rule 79G of Canal Rules and mere issuance of a proclamation in the village is not sufficient service. Accordingly, prayer has been made for dismissal of the appeal. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. Briefly, the facts are that the appellants preferred an application before the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot, respondent No.2, for shifting of their area of about 52 acres from outlet No.9453TF of Panj Graien minor to the area of outlet No.355925/R Rajbaha Abohar. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 alongwith other coowners of the land, which was irrigated through the Rajbaha Abohar outlet were made party and accordingly served by the Divisional Canal Officer in the proceedings held under the provisions of the Canal Act and the Canal Rules framed thereunder. On hearing the parties, the Divisional Canal Officer allowed the application preferred by the appellants vide order dated 3.3.2006. Against this order, an appeal was preferred by Bakhtaur Singh and other cosharers before the Superintending Canal Officer, who issued notices to the parties. The parties were heard and the appeal as preferred under Section 30B (iii) of the Canal Act was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2006 (Annexure P5), upholding the decision dated 31.3.2006 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer in the interest of more irrigation and production. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred a review petition before the Superintending Canal Officer, praying for recall of the decision dated 20.11.2006 on the ground that no notice for hearing of the case was issued to them by the Court and under Rule 99 of the Canal Rules, the review application be allowed and the main case may be listed for hearing and decided afresh on merits. In the said application, notice was issued to the appellants herein and on perusal of the records, it was observed by the Superintending Canal Officer vide impugned order dated 30.1.2007 that notice for hearing was not got noted to the review-applicants and, therefore, they had failed to present their objections in the Court at the time of hearing, thus, allowed the review application. The Superintending Canal Officer further proceeded to set-aside the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer dated 31.3.2006, which resulted in filing of the writ petition by the appellants, challenging the said order on the grounds as have been recorded above, which were not accepted by the learned Single Judge, resulting in dismissal of the writ petition, leading to filing of the present appeal. For decision in the present appeal, reference to Section 30B of the Canal Act is required, which reads as follow: “30B. Publication of a Scheme.(1) every scheme shall, as soon as may be after its preparation, be published in such form and manner as may be prescribed by rules made in this behalf inviting objections and suggestions with respect thereof within twentyone days of the publication. (2) The Divisional Canal Officer may after considering the objections and suggestions, if any, approve, modify or reject scheme. (3) The Superintending Canal Officer may suomotu within a period of thirty days from the date of publication under section 30C, or on an application by a person aggrieved by the approval, modification or rejection of the scheme from the Divisional Canal Officer and may, after examining the same, confirm the action taken by the Divisional Canal Officer or may, after affording to the persons affected an opportunity of being heard, approve or modify the scheme in such form as he may deem fit or may reject the same.” (highlighting is ours) For the purpose of the present case, consideration with regard to the powers of the Superintending Canal Officer of review, on which reliance has been placed by counsel for private respondent Nos.3 and 4 would be required. A perusal of the above reproduced Section 30C would show that the power of review of order of Divisional Canal Officer confirming the scheme can only be exercised by the Superintending Canal Officer, when he exercises the powers suomotu and that too within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the scheme under Section 30C of the Canal Act by the Divisional Canal Officer. He has no power to review its own order in case he has already exercised his power as a Superintending Canal Officer either suomotu or on an application preferred by a person aggrieved. There is no provision under the Canal Act, which entitles the Superintending Canal Officer to review its own order. By now it is well settled that when an authority acts as a quasijudicial Tribunal, it has no authority to rehear, review, alter or vary its previous order unless the statute gives such a power to do so and that too to the extent permitted and subject to the conditions imposed by the statute. The judgments rendered by this Court in Nand Singh's case (supra) and Sube Singh's case (supra) support this position, which we reiterate. In the case of Nathu (supra), on which reliance has been placed by counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4, the issue in question was with regard to the power of the Divisional Canal Officer to review his own order. It is under this context that this Court had held that only the Superintending Canal Officer has the power to review the order of Divisional Canal Officer and not the Divisional Canal Officer himself. The Court was not dealing with the powers of the Superintending Canal Officer to review its own order. This judgment would, thus, not apply. That apart, even the exercise of power of review by the Superintending Canal Officer vide order dated 30.1.2007 on the ground that the notice of hearing was not got noted to the review applicants i.e. respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the appeal preferred by the cosharers is also not acceptable as it is an admitted position that respondent Nos.3 and 4 had not preferred any appeal against the order dated 31.3.2006 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot, respondent No.2. When no appeal was preferred by these respondents and their interest being similar and common to that of the appellants, Rule 87 of the Canal Rules would be applicable, which deals with notice of hearing to the parties in an appeal preferred against the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer. The said Rule 87 of the Canal Rules reads as follow: “87. Notice of hearing to be given. - Notice of the date and place fixed for the hearing of the appeal shall be given to the applicant in such manner as the Court may direct and to every other party to the case whose interest is opposed to that of the appellant in the manner hereinafter prescribed.” A perusal of the above Rule would show that notice has to be given to the appellants and to every other party to the case whose `interest is opposed to that of the appellants'. Admittedly, the interest of private respondent Nos.3 and 4 is not opposed to that of the appellants before the Superintending Canal Officer against the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer. They were, thus, not required to be served in the appeal, especially when they have not preferred any appeal, meaning thereby that they had accepted the order. The basis and the grounds for passing the order dated 30.1.2007 by the Superintending Canal Officer, respondent No.1 is not sustainable as the same is contrary to the requirement of the Canal Act and the Canal Rules framed thereunder. Reliance upon the judgment in Suraj Mal's case (supra) by counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 is misplaced for the reason that the issue before the Court was with regard to non-service of the right holders before and by the Divisional Canal Officer in the case leading to not hearing them before passing of the order, which was prejudicial to their interest and was held to be noncompliance of Rule 79F of the Canal Rules, which requires service of notice on all affected right holders. Rules 79A to 79I of the Canal Rules deal with procedure of service of summons, notices and publication of notices, proclamation etc. in the proceedings before the Divisional Canal Officer. It is under these circumstances that service has to be effected, preferably in person, upon all right holders, which rule and procedure would not be applicable to the appeals. Rules 79A to 79I of the Canal Rules deal with procedure of service of summons, notices and publication of notices, proclamation etc. in the proceedings before the Divisional Canal Officer. It is under these circumstances that service has to be effected, preferably in person, upon all right holders, which rule and procedure would not be applicable to the appeals. Rule 87 of the Canal Rules deals with notice of hearing to be given in an appeal, which is restricted to effecting service only upon the appellants and the person(s)/party whose interest is opposed to that of the appellants. The two rules, therefore, operate in different fields and have a distinct purpose, which is sought to be achieved and served. The reason is quite obvious as before the Divisional Canal Officer every person, who is to be affected, has to be served to comply with the basic principle of audi alteram partem, as contemplated under Rule 79 of the Canal Rules. Once a decision is taken by the Divisional Canal Officer and the Scheme is published, this right has been restricted to only that party which prefers to challenge the said order and the party whose interest is opposed to that of the appellants, thus, rule 87 of the Canal Rules, which falls under the subheading “Of Appeals, revisions and references and the Procedure therein.” The judgment, thus, in the case of Suraj Mal's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Counsel for private respondent Nos.3 and 4 has placed reliance upon Rule 99 of the Canal Rules to submit that the Superintending Canal Officer would have power to review his own order. This contention of counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 would not be of any help to him as the power as envisaged under Rule 99 of the Canal Rules is only limited and that too would have to be read in conjunction with Rule 87 of the Canal Rules. Rule 99 of the Canal Rules, thus, would be applicable only in the circumstances where a party as mentioned in Rule 87 of the Canal Rules as explained above, has not been served. Rule 99 of the Canal Rules, thus, would be applicable only in the circumstances where a party as mentioned in Rule 87 of the Canal Rules as explained above, has not been served. But as held above, in the instant case private respondents were not required to be served in the appeal and so Rule 99 could not have been invoked by the Superintending Canal Officer to set-aside its previous order or decision and grant rehearing. Rule 99 of the Canal Rules reads as follow: “99. Of hearing in certain events. - If any party against whom an order or decision is made or given upon an appeal heard in his absence shall within thirty days from the such order or decision, satisfy the Court that he had received no notice of the time and place fixed for the hearing thereof, or had not received such notice in sufficient time to permit him to appear, and that he did not willfully evade service thereof, the Court may pass order, if it thinks such order requisite for the ends of justice (and not otherwise) upon such terms as appear just, set aside its previous decision or order, and grant a rehearing, which shall be subject to the same rules as the hearing of an appeal.” A perusal of the above would show that it would be applicable only in situations and in certain events, which have been highlighted therein as qualified in Rule 87 of the Canal Rules qua the applicant, who has preferred an appeal only that other party to the case whose interest is opposed to that of the appellants. This is clear from the expression `which shall be subject to the same rules as the hearing of an appeal' used in Rule 99, which circumscribes the powers under this rule. The power, thus, provided under Rule 99 of the Canal Rules cannot be said to be that of review and in any case, no right can be conferred under the rules, which is contrary to and do not find support from the provisions of the parent Act for conferring such a right under the statutory rules. The power, thus, provided under Rule 99 of the Canal Rules cannot be said to be that of review and in any case, no right can be conferred under the rules, which is contrary to and do not find support from the provisions of the parent Act for conferring such a right under the statutory rules. The power under Rule 99 of the Canal Rules is to give due opportunity of hearing to every party as specified in Rule 87 in the appeal and in effect is complying with the requirement and mandate of Rule 87 and is restricted thereto. The only power of review, as provided under the Canal Act, is under Section 30B of the Canal Act, which does not confer any authority upon the Superintending Canal Officer to review its own order. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the order dated 20.3.2009 passed by learned Single Judge is hereby set-aside. As a sequel thereof, the writ petition is allowed by quashing the impugned order dated 30.1.2007 (Annexure P6 with the writ petition) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana, respondent No.1. Parties to bear their own costs.