IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18338 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 08, 2011 Risal Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Johny Vij, Advocate, for Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 6. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondent Nos.7 to 11. None for respondent No.12. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 3/17.4.2006 (Annexure P-11) whereby respondent No.2 viz. Director, Consolidation of Holdings and Land CWP No.18338 of 2008 [2] Records, Haryana, has set aside orders dated 18.7.2003 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Settlement Officer, Rohtak; and Order dated 27.10.2005 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Assistant Collector, Consolidation, Haryana. Order dated 10.4.2003 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Consolidation Officer, Rohtak, has been upheld. 2. It transpires that the petitioner, after passing of Order dated 17.4.2006 (Annexure P-11), approached this Court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No.10368 of 2006 titled ‘Risal Singh vs. State of Haryana & others’, however, withdrew the petition with liberty to file an application for review of order, Annexure P-11. 3. Order dated 31.5.2008 (Annexure P-14) has been passed by the Director, Consolidation, Haryana, considering the review application of the petitioner. On facts, order passed by the Consolidation Officer has been upheld. In regard to review jurisdiction however, it has been said that the said officer has no powers of review. 4. The facts, in sequence of events, are required to be seen. 5. It appears that Ranbir Singh son of Hazari, Balwant Singh son of Chandgi and other CWP No.18338 of 2008 [3] share holders of water course drawing water from outlet RD 16882/TC Karoda Minor, filed an application under Section 24 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (for short, ‘Canal Act’) praying for restoration of water course in Killa No.57/12-15. It was pleaded that Risal Singh, petitioner and others had demolished the water course. The canal authorities conducted enquiry as required by law. 6. Para 6 of order dated 2.5.1996, placed on record as Annexure R-1 with the reply of private respondents, passed by Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Water Services Sub Division, Jhajjar, shows that the application of private respondents has been allowed while exercising jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Canal Act. Finding has been recorded on the basis of site inspection and investigation that water course at issue is a permanent water course that has been running for about 30 years. Order has been passed restoring the water course which had been demolished by the petitioner. 7. Petitioner, Risal Singh, filed an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, Jhajjar, under the Canal Act. Even the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide Order dated 15.11.1996 (Annexure R-2). It transpires CWP No.18338 of 2008 [4] that even Divisional Canal Officer inspected the site, considered revenue record and dismissed the appeal directing restoration of water course with the help of police. 8. Orders passed by the Canal authorities were not challenged before the Forum under the Canal Act or before this Court, rather an application has been filed by the petitioner before Special Secretary under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, Consolidation Act’). In the application, it has been prayed that a path may be granted to approach the manure pits of the petitioner comprised in Khasra Nos.491 to 499. The Special Secretary, exercising powers under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer, Rohtak, for decision. 9. The Consolidation Officer, vide Order dated 10.4.2003 (Annexure P-2), denied any relief to the petitioner. It has been recorded in the order that there was no mistake at the time of consolidation. Entries in the revenue record have been made correctly. The manure pits are adjacent to the land of the petitioner and there is no need of Raasta, rather water course as depicted in the record could not be converted CWP No.18338 of 2008 [5] into a passage. 10. Petitioner filed an application under Section 21(3) of the Consolidation Act which has been allowed vide Order dated 18.7.2003 (Annexure P-3). A direction has been issued to convert the khal/ water course into a passage leading to cow dung pits of the petitioner. The appeal of the petitioner accordingly has been accepted. 11. Aggrieved by Order dated 18.7.2003 (Annexure P-3), Ranbir Singh (respondent) filed an application that has been dismissed vide Order dated 27.10.2005 (Annexure P-6), however without assigning any reason. 12. Respondents approached Director Consolidation under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act. Vide Order Annexure P-11 dated 3/17.4.2006, order (Annexure P-2) passed by the Consolidation Officer has been upheld. It has been held by the Director that existence of water course for the purposes of irrigation stands established from orders passed by the authorities under the Canal Act. Petitioner, Risal Singh and others had demolished the water course. Orders Annexure P-3 and P-6 have been set aside. 13. On the review application, other impugned order dated 31.5.2008 (Annexure P-14) CWP No.18338 of 2008 [6] has been passed, re-endorsing Order Annexure P-11. 14. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no passage to the plot of the petitioner and other plot holders which is required to be given. Orders passed by the Canal authorities are de-hors the consolidation scheme. 15. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 11 has drawn attention of the Court towards site plan, Annexure P-7, to indicate that a water course has been shown in existence at the site. The authorities under the Canal Act have already adjudicated the issue and have found as a matter of fact that a water course was in existence. In this view of the matter, no interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is called for. 16. I have considered the rival contentions. 17. The orders passed by the Canal authorities, in a dispute between the petitioner and respondents, indicate that a permanent water course existed for the last about 30 years which was disrupted by the petitioner and others to be used as a passage. The findings clearly indicate CWP No.18338 of 2008 [7] that a wrong picture has been painted and projected so as to take advantage of the land under the water course to be utilised as passage. When the Sub Divisional Canal Officer and Divisional Canal Officer passed orders, Annexure R-1 and R-2, against the petitioner, rather than challenging the said orders, an application under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act has been filed. The authorities under the Consolidation Act have returned a finding that it was a water course and same could not have been converted into passage. The petitioner has been provided a passage, as is evident from concluding portion of Annexure P-2. 18. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case noticed above, I do not find any reason to judicially review the orders passed on the basis of site inspection/ spot inspection and in reference to the relevant record. 19. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) February 08, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?