C. M. No. 1851 of 2010 and 1 LPA No. 640 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C. M. No. 1851 of 2010 and LPA No. 640 of 2010 Date of decision: 11.11.2010 Balbir Singh ….. PETITIONER VERSUS Superintending Canal Officer, Upperbari and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Jatinder J.C.Nagpal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No. 1851 of 2010 In view of reasons mentioned in this application, the same is allowed. Delay of two days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No. 640 of 2010 This appeal has been filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.03.2010 dismissing CWP No. 15463 of 2009 filed by the appellant. In that writ petition, orders passed by the Divisional Canal C. M. No. 1851 of 2010 and 2 LPA No. 640 of 2010 Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer on 18.11.2008, 25.08.2009 respectively, ordering restoration of a water course in favour of respondent No. 3 were under challenge. Counsel for the parties heard. It is apparent from the record that respondent No. 3 moved an application by stating that water course 'D-E' shown in the site plan has been demolished by the appellant and a prayer was made for its restoration. As per the record, on receipt of that application, enquiry was entrusted to Ziledar of the area, who went to the spot and made a report that water course has been demolished and recommended its restoration. Thereafter, the appellant and respondent No. 3 were heard by the Divisional Canal Officer, who gave a finding that a water course was in existence and warabandi, to get turn of water by respondent No. 3 was fixed on that water course for the last so many years. By taking note of the same, restoration of the water course was ordered. The appellant went in appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, which was dismissed on 25.08.2009 by observing as under:- “ The file and map have been examined minutely. The argument of the appellant that the area of the opposite party is adjoining the watercourse under scheme and there is no watercourse on the spot, the statement of the opposite party that appellant has demolished his watercourse, which is running since the time of consolidation. The court has minutely examined the file and the map and the report of the Ziledar in the case-file were also prepared. The decision of the Divisional Canal Officer, Jandiala has been gone through C. M. No. 1851 of 2010 and 3 LPA No. 640 of 2010 carefully. Warabandi and from the crop Girdwari enclosed in the file, the existence of the watercourse is proved. The Nakkas of the warabandi has been mentioned in the warabandi. Therefore, keeping in view the interest of irrigation and more production of the grain, the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer, Division Jandiala, UBDN, Amritstar dated 18.11.08 is being upheld.” The appellant, thereafter, filed the writ petition, which was also dismissed. Hence, this appeal. Counsel for the appellant has failed to controvert before us that warabandi, to get turn of water by respondent No. 3 was fixed on the water course in dispute. There is nothing on record to show that respondent No. 3 has any alternative water course to get water for irrigation of his land. The learned Single Judge, by noting facts on record and after looking into the plea raised by both the parties, has observed as under:- “ The dispute before the canal authorities was, whether the water course 'D-E' was in existence and was thereafter demolished. Both the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer have recorded findings of the fact that the water course was in existence and has been demolished. As a consequence, the canal authorities rightly directed restoration of the water course. The petitioner's grievance wit2h respect to purchase of land by the private respondents and/or that respondent No. 3's land is served by another water course is irrelevant, as the question was whether the existing C. M. No. 1851 of 2010 and 4 LPA No. 640 of 2010 water course that had been demolished by the petitioner should be restored.” The finding given by the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified. The order of restoration of water course appears to have been passed to enhance the better prospectus of irrigation. If the water course is not restored, respondent No. 3 will have no access to the canal water. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE November 11, 2010 pj