IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.3846 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 02, 2011 SURJIT SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. JS Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. GS Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. SS Chopra, Advocate, for respondents 4, 5 & 7. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 The private respondents filed an application under Section 30-FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (for short 'the Act'), praying for restoration of water course, allegedly demolished by petitioner-Surjit Singh. The application has been allowed vide order dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure P-3), passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Rupnagar Head Works Division. The petitioner carried an appeal, which has been dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2008 (Annexure P-4), passed by Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana. Orders, Annexures P-3 and P-4, are under challenge in the present writ petition. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Civil Writ Petition No.3846 of 2009 2 impugned orders do not disclose that the water course, in fact, was in existence which, allegedly, had been demolished by the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. 3 Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the basis of the record, contends that there is a site plan, which shows that indeed a water course was in existence which, subsequently, was demolished by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further pointed out that the impugned orders are based on the report of the Ziledar, which clearly indicates that a water course, in fact, was in existence, and had been demolished by the petitioner. This is also borne out from the statement given by the shareholders. 4 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 5 An order passed by a statutory authority under Section 30-FF of the Act is required to clearly indicate, on the basis of relevant material, that a water course was in existence, which had been demolished, altered, obstructed or damaged. In the impugned orders, no such finding has been recorded. Without recording a specific finding that a water course was in existence, on the basis of reasonable and admissible material, application under Section 30-FF could not have been allowed. 6 In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Orders dated 16.7.2008 and 23.10.2008, Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively, are hereby quashed. Divisional Canal Officer, Head Works Division, Rupnagar, is directed to hear the parties Civil Writ Petition No.3846 of 2009 3 again, in reference to the record and, thereafter, pass fresh orders, in accordance with law. 7 The parties are directed to appear before the Divisional Canal Officer, Head Works Division, Rupnagar, on 16.5.2011. The Divisional Canal Officer is directed to dispose of the case by 27.6.2011. In case, an appeal is carried, the same shall also be finally decided within 30 days of its filing. 8 It is made clear that if either of the parties does not put in appearance before the Divisional Canal Officer, the Divisional Canal Officer shall be at liberty to proceed with the proceedings and pass a final order on the basis of available material. May 02, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?