CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16270 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 21, 2009 Harpreet Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Superintending Engineer, Canal Colony, Ferozepur and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. P.P.S.Duggall, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that he has been condemned unheard by the authorities while restoring the Khal. The petitioner claims that there was no Khal, which was required to be restored. Petitioner has purchased some land through registered sale deed and learnt about the impugned order from Darshan Kaur, who was impleaded as a respondent, when efforts were made to carve out the Khal. Joginder Singh respondent No.3 filed an application saying that his area fall in Moga burj No.4412-R, Sultan Khan Minor Chak and that Smt.Darshan Kaur wife of Swaran Singh has demolished small boundary (wat) from the southern side of his area CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16270 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: due to which he is unable to receive the canal water, with which he used to irrigate his area and which has been stopped. He accordingly prayed for restarting the same. The Divisional Canal Officer sent the case to Sub-Divisional officer for submitting a report, who further marked this application to Ziledar, Ferozepur. Zileadar accordingly visited the spot and recorded the statements of the applicants. Site map was also got prepared from the Patwari of the area. He accordingly recommended that the demolished Khal B.C. 8 marla, killa No.11/12/1 be restored. The Mandal Officer also recommended that the dismantled Khal be restored as it was found that before point BC, Moga upto point 20 along with the path was working and from point C onward by this Khal, the land of Darshan Kaur is being irrigated. Notice was accordingly served under Section 30 FF(2) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act to the effective parties, i.e. Joginder Singh, Darshan Kaur and Swaran Singh. Darshan kaur had purchased this area from a joint area and regarding this Khal/water course there was a compromise before the Panchayat from which Darshan Kaur had resiled. It is in this background, the Divisional Canal Officer observed that the Khal in question had been demolished by Darshan Kaur as further from point C onward the Khal was in existence. Accordingly, order was made for restoring the Khal so that land of Joginder Singh could be irrigated. Petitioner claims to be the owner of part of Killa No.12/1, as shown in Annexure P-6 and prays that he was also required to be served with a notice. He accordingly prays for setting-aside the impugned order, being in violation of principle of natural justice. In response to a specific query as to what objection he would have had CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16270 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: and whether in view of the facts as noticed there was any need to serve notice on the petitioner, the counsel could not give any satisfactory answer. Darshan Kaur is the one who had demolished this Khal in an area where the Khal touched her land. She alone was the effected party and was accordingly heard. As per the observations in the impugned order, the Khal beyond the point C was in existence. It is only between points B and C that this Khal was demolished, which was touching the land of Darshan Kaur. In this background, there was no requirement of issuing notice to the petitioner. Otherwise also, the petitioner could not show any cause for which he was required to be heard. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. January 21,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE