CWP No.5498 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.5498 of 2007 Date of Decision: 19.7.2010 Jasbir Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. The Superintending Canal Officer, Uppar Bari Dwab Canal, Distt.Amritsar and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr.B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for respondents no.3 and 5. Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for respondent no.4. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioners challenge orders dated 28.6.2006 and 4.12.2006, passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Majitha Division, Uppar Bari Dwab Nehar, Amritsar and the Superintending Canal Officer, Uppar Bari, Dwab Canal, Distt.Amritsar, directing restoration of a water course. The private respondents filed an application for restoration of their water course alleging that the petitioners had demolished the water course, without any cause. The Divisional Canal Officer, placed reliance upon a report submitted by his subordinate and held that as the petitioners have demolished a running water course, it has to be restored. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the Superintending Canal Officer was dismissed and the findings recorded by the Divisional Canal Officer were affirmed. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the water course is CWP No.5498 of 2007 2 neither sanctioned under any scheme nor excavated pursuant to an agreement, the canal authorities have no jurisdiction to direct its restoration, without payment of compensation to the petitioners. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that the water course has been in existence since 1965 and, therefore, whether it is sanctioned or not, it falls within the definition of a water course as defined under Section 3(2) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, the orders passed by the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer do not call for interference. I have heard counsel for the parties and find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer holding that the petitioners have demolished the water course that existed since the year 1965. Whether the water course was temporary, sanctioned or not or operating by way of an agreement, is entirely irrelevant, in view of the definition of a water course. The petitioners prayer that they should be granted compensation, as the restored water course traverses their land, applies to cases, where a new water course is excavated, the alignment of an existing water course is changed or an outlet is to be shifted but not to cases for restoration of a demolished water course. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The respondents are directed to implement the orders within three months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. 19.7.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE