C.W.P.No.19463 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19463 of 2009 Date of decision:16th December, 2009 Satinder Pal Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. B.S.Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. Permod Kohli,J.(Oral) Notice of motion. At the asking of the Court, Mr. P.C.Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Private respondents no. 4 to 6 filed an application under Section 30 FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, complaining the demarcation of the water course relating to outlet Burji no.25233/L, Rajbah Fatte Nangal, village Kot Faridi, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Divisional Canal Officer, U.B.D.C.,Gurdaspur Division, District Gurdaspur, on receipt of the application, called the area Ziledar and directed him to inspect the spot and submit a report. Ziledar inspected the spot and reported that the water course has been cut down at points mentioned in the report. He also reported that the water course has been demolished by the opposite party. After summoning the petitioner, hearing the parties and on consideration of the report, the Divisional Canal Officer, vide order C.W.P.No.19463 of 2009 2 dated 20.06.2008, ordered for restoration of the water course. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer by raising a plea that the water course is not in existence for the last 30/35 years. Superintending Canal Officer, after hearing the parties, upheld the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 16.09.2008. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the aforesaid orders. It is contended that the authorities below have not appreciated the facts on record. It is further contended that no watercourse was existing for the last 30 to 35 years and thus, the findings are incorrect. I have perused the impugned order, there are concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below, regarding the existence and demolition of the water course. The findings of the authorities below cannot be interfered unless perverse, it is settled law that this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot sit as a court of appeal over the findings recorded by the authorities below. Both the courts below have recorded their detailed findings. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition, the petition is dismissed. [PERMOD KOHLI] JUDGE 16th December, 2009 Shivani Kaushik