IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 2205 of 1994 DATE OF DECISION : 20.05.2011 Balwinder Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Superintending Canal Officer, Upper Bari Doab Canal Circle, Amritsar and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Ranjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.3 and 4. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J Petitioner Balwinder Singh has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13.7.1993 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, as well as the order dated 21.12.1993 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Superintending Canal Officer. In the present case, respondents No.3 and 4 filed an application under Section 30 FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for restoration of water course in CWP No. 2205 of 1994 -2- question, which was a running water course and was illegally demolished by the petitioner. The Divisional Canal Officer, after obtaining report of the Ziledar and providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to respondents No.3 and 4 and other persons having interest in the said water course, allowed the said application vide order dated 13.7.1993 (Annexure P-1) and ordered to restore the demolished water course. A perusal of the said order shows that it was an agreed order. The petitioner, who allegedly was having his rice crops on the land of the water course, was ordered to be paid ` 1,000/- by respondents No.3 and 4 as damages for the land, which falls in the way of water course. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Superintending Canal Officer, after hearing both the parties, vide his order dated 21.12.1993 (Annexure P-2), dismissed the said appeal, while observing as under : “File and site plan was inspected. Statements of appellants and other party are also considered. During discussions with both the parties, it is proved that scheme khal which was in running condition and khal A,B,C,D,E,G,H,I,K. The part of khal A,B,C,D,E which is dismantled as per site plan is proved and appellant had also admitted this fact. So keeping in view the irrigation interest, the part of Khal A B G 66-M/17-24 and 76- M/3-4/4 the Eastern side Watt, BC 70-M/8/2 Northern side Watt and Khal D E 69-M/6-7-8 The northern side is restored and appeal is dismissed u/s 30 FF (4) of Northern India Canal and Drainage Act 8 of 1873 and order of Division Office, Majitha Mandal Canal is affirmed.” CWP No. 2205 of 1994 -3- Against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the existence of the water course. He has only argued that very less water was flowing from the water course, which was not sufficient for irrigating the holdings of all the persons, whose land was attached to the said water course. According to the learned counsel, the said water course was demolished by all the co-sharers, while taking decision in the Panchayat. He has relied upon a certificate (Annexure P-4), issued by the Sarpanch to the effect that Mogha No. 41596, which was irrigating the village land, was closed, as it was of 2” diameter and was not sufficient to irrigate the land. The said Mogha was lying closed for the last 14-15 years. On the basis of this document, learned counsel argued that the said water course was not existing, when the order of restoration was passed, therefore, the canal authorities were not justified in ordering restoration of the said water course. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. The canal authorities, as a matter of fact, found that the petitioner, without any authority, had demolished the running water course, for which he was not authorised under the Act to demolish a running water course with the help of the Gram Panchayat on the pretext that in the said water course, CWP No. 2205 of 1994 -4- sufficient water was not flowing to irrigate their land. If the petitioner was having any grouse regarding insufficiency of water, it was open for him to approach the canal authorities, but he himself should not have demolished the water course. In the present case, the canal authorities, after coming to the conclusion that the water course was illegally demolished by the petitioner, has rightly ordered for its restoration. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders, passed by the canal authorities. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. May 20, 2011 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE