CWP No.12924 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.12924 of 2007 Date of Decision : 22.3.2010 Jagraj Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents ... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present : Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Advocate for respondents no.4 and 5. RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 26.4.2007 and 26.7.2006, passed by the Canal Officer, Patiala, Circle Irrigation Branch, Patiala and the Divisional Canal officer, Sangrur Division, Irrigation Branch, Sangrur. Sukhminder Singh etc., respondents no.4 to 9, filed an application for restoration of the water course “EF” by alleging that it was allotted during warabandi but has been demolished. The petitioners opposed the application by alleging that the application is the result of a political rivalry as private respondents want to settle political scores. It was further prayed that there is no evidence about the existence or demolition of the water course and as private respondents are irrigating their land from other water courses, the application should be dismissed. The Divisional Canal Officer accepted the application and held that as the water course “EF” was sanctioned by the Deputy Collector, CWP No.12924 of 2007 2 Patiala, vide order dated 21.10.1964, it has to be restored under Section 30 (FF) of the Northern Indian Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 26.4.2007. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the absence of any evidence of the existence or the demolition of the water course EF, the canal authorities had no jurisdiction to order its restoration. It is further submitted that as private respondents are already irrigating their land through other water courses, the impugned orders are illegal and void. Counsel for the State of Punjab and counsel for the private respondents submit that the water course “EF” was sanctioned by the Deputy Collector, Patiala, on 21.10.1964. The authenticity of this order has not been challenged by the petitioners. Even otherwise, the petitioners purchased this land much later and, thereafter demolished the water course. It is submitted that in view of the order dated 21.10.1964, the canal authorities rightly directed the restoration of the water course. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and carefully considered the arguments addressed by respective counsel. The petitioners do not deny that the water course “EF” was sanctioned on 21.10.1964 but state that there is no water course in existence at the spot. The petitioners argument that this water course was never in existence or that there is no finding that the water course was demolished is belied by the order dated 21.10.1964 and the orders passed by canal authorities. The petitioners grievance that the water course would pass through their land, cannot be a ground to refuse the restoration of a water course, which was sanctioned on 21.10.1964. It would also be necessary to CWP No.12924 of 2007 3 mention here that the petitioners purchased the land about 15 years ago and appear to have demolished the water course. The orders passed by canal authorities are neither perverse nor arbitrary. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. 22.3.2010 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE