Civil Writ Petition No.21828 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21828 of 2011 Date of Decision:25.11.2011 Dalip Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Superintending Canal Officer and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.V.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, Chatter Singh son of Golu Ram (respondent No.4), one of the shareholder, moved an application before the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Barwala(respondent No.3)(for brevity “the SDCO”), for restoration of watercourse in question, to irrigate his holding, invoking the provisions of Section 24(2) of The Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, 1974(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”), inter alia, pleading that the petitioners have illegally dismantled the aforementioned watercourse, one and a half months ago, in order to obstruct his irrigation. 2. In the wake of notices, the petitioners appeared and refuted the claim of respondent No.4. The SDCO came to the conclusion that the level of the fields of respondent No.4 is higher, but since, there was no symptom of demolition of the watercourse in question, so, he negatived his(respondent No.4) claim and advised him to represent his case to the higher authorities, for sanction of his watercourse, Civil Writ Petition No.21828 of 2011 2 by way of order dated 22.02.2011(Annexure P-2). 3. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-2), respondent No.4 filed the appeal, which was accepted by the Divisional Canal Officer(respondent No.2)(for short “the DCO”) by virtue of impugned order dated 12.09.2011(Annexure P-3). 4. Sequelly, the revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed, as being not maintainable, by the Superintending Canal Officer(respondent No.1) (for brevity “the SCO”), through the medium of impugned order dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P-4). 5. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present civil writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-3 and P-4) under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 7. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, there was no symptom, so, the DCO committed a legal mistake in restoring the dismantled water-course in question, lacks merit. 8. As is evident from the record that, respondent No.4 moved an application for restoration of watercourse in order to effectively irrigate his higher level land. Although, the SDCO, after following the due procedure and inspecting the spot, came to a definite conclusion that the level of the land of respondent No.4 is higher than that of the watercourse denominated by letters “ABC”, but negatived his claim only on the ground that no symptom of demolition of water was visible at the spot. 9. Here, to me, the SDCO has committed a legal mistake in this respect. The DCO after inspecting the spot, rectified the mistake and recorded a finding of fact that it stands proved on record that respondent No.4 used to irrigate his fields through the watercourse, which was dismantled by the petitioners, which is clear Civil Writ Petition No.21828 of 2011 3 from warabandis of 06.09.1976, 05.05.2006 and 19.10.2009. It has also been depicted in his order that after the demolition of the watercourse, respondent No.4 tried to irrigate his fields through another water-course “ABC”, but as per high level of the land, smooth irrigation is not possible through the said watercourse “ABC”. Therefore, to my mind, the DCO has rightly restored the dismantled water-course in question, by means of impugned order dated 12.09.2011(Annexure P-3), which in substance is as under:- “I have carefully examined the case record including Khaka Plan and other relevant record and heard the arguments of both counsels of appellants/respondents. Notices were properly served upon all concerned shareholders as per rules. The site was inspected on 05.09.11. From the perusal of records, it has been observed that Sh.Chatter Singh s/o Sh.Golu Ram etc. used to irrigate his fields through alleged dismantled watercourse as clear from warabandi of 6.9.1976, 5.5.2006 and 19.10.2009. It means watercourse was in existence(sic). But after dismantle of alleged watercourse appellant tried to irrigate his fields through another watercourse ABC. But as per level of the appellants filed, smooth irrigation is not possible through watercourse ABC. Moreover the appellant has legal right to get restored his old source of irrigation. So, I order to restore the dismantled watercourse in Rect.Kila No.102/11-20-19- 20, 21-22, 103/15-16, 14-17, 13-14 middle line. The appeal is accepted and order of S.D.C.O. Barwala dated 22.02.2011 is set aside.” 10. At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any legal violation or material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned orders(Annexures P-3 and P-4) are illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this regard. 11. Meaning thereby, the DCO has recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant behalf. Such impugned orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the Civil Writ Petition No.21828 of 2011 4 impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. November 25, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No