CWP No.19048 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.19048 of 2006 Date of Decision: 8.3.2010 Salwinder Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. Divisional Canal Officer,Jandiala Division U.B.D.C., Amritsar and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. H.S. Baath, Advocate for respondents no.3 and 4. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 27.6.2006 and 19.10.2006, passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, U.B.D.C. Circle, Amrtisar. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the water course was demolished at points `BCD', respondent no.4 filed an application before the Divisional Canal Officer for restoration of the water course. Vide order dated 12.7.2005, the Divisional Canal Officer restored the water course `BCD' at the southern boundary of killa No.11-12-13-14 of Rect.No.200. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.3 filed an appeal. The Superintending Canal Officer, without assigning any reason restored the CWP No.19048 of 2006 2 water course at the northern bounday of killa no.17-18-19-20 of Rect.No.200. The petitioners thereafter filed an application for review of the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, but the application was dismissed. It is prayed that as the water course `BCD' was in existence at the northern boundary of killa no.11-12-13-14 of Rect.No.200, the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer should be set aside and the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer should be affirmed. Counsel for respondent no.3 submits that as the Superintending Canal Officer examined the warabandi, appraised the material on record and, therefore, his order does not require interference. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and am satisfied that the Superintending Canal Officer erred while holding that the demolished water course should be restored at the northern boundary of killa no.17-18-19-20 of Rect.No.200. The Ziledar, who inspected the site and the Divisional Canal officer, who examined the matter in its entirety, particularly the site plan, held that the demolished water course `BCD' has to be restored at its original position at the southern boundary of killa no.11-12-13-14 of Rect.No.200. The Superintending Canal Officer without referring to the site plan, the report submitted by the Ziledar, the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer or assigning any reason, proceeded to pass an order that the water course should be restored at the northern boundary of killa no.17-18-19-29 of Rect.No.200. The certified copy of the site plan Annexure P-6 and the report prepared by the Ziledar clearly establish that the demolished water course was situated at the southern boundary of killa no.11-12-13-14 of Rect.No.200. It would also be necessary to mention here that while dismissing the review petition, CWP No.19048 of 2006 3 the Superintending Canal Officer made an observation that the boundary of the water course is not clear thereby lending credence to the argument that the Superintending Canal Officer could not have ordered restoration of the water course at the northern boundary of killa No.17-18-19-20 of Rect.No.200. A demolished water course has been restored at its original place and while restoring a water course, canal authorities have no jurisdiction to direct that it be restored at a different place. In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is allowed, the orders dated 27.6.2006 and 19.10.2006 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer are set aside and the order dated 12.7.2005 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer is affirmed, with no order as to costs. 8.3.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE