In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.17800 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:20.11.2009 Kashmir Chand and others .....Petitioner v. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. O.P. Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur (respondent No.1) whereby the order dated 4.3.2003 (Annexure- P.2) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Eastern Canal Division, Canal Colony, Ferozepur (respondent No.2) has been set aside and the application filed by respondents No.3 to 5 for restoration of the water course passing diagonally from Killas No.3 and 8 in village Chandmari, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur was rightly and legally rejected as the application of the respondents No.3 to 5 was not proved as per Section 30-FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (“Act” - for short). Respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application alleging that a water course was passing diagonally from Killas No.3 and 8 of Rectangle No.18 in village Chandmari, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur has been demolished C.W.P. No.17800 of 2009 [2] by the petitioners. As a consequence of the demolition, the irrigation right of respondents No.3 to 5 was affected. A prayer was made for restoration of the water course. The application was sent to the Sub Divisional Officer, Fazilka, for inquiry who got an inquiry conducted through the Ziledar, Fazilka. A recommendation was sent for restoration of the water course. The matter was then considered by the Divisional Canal Officer, Eastern Canal Divisional Canal Colony, Ferozepur (respondent No.2) who ordered that after inspection of the spot a report be made to the effect as to whether during the last three years, there existed ABC or a diagonal water course. In terms of order dated 4.3.2003 (Annexure-P.2) it was found that instead of water course AB, the water course ABC was running at the spot. Accordingly, the application of the applicants (respondents No.3 to 5 herein) was held to be not proved as per Section 30FF of the Act. Therefore, the demand of the applicants (respondents No.3 to 5 herein) was not accepted as per Section 30FF of the Act and Punjab Amendment Act 23 of 1965. Aggrieved against the said order dated 4.3.2003 (Annexure P2), the respondents No.3 to 5 filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur (respondent No.1). The Superintending Canal Officer (respondent No.1) after perusing the record and the site plan had found that the water course in question was running diagonally from Killa No.8 of Rectangle No.18. It seemed that the respondents (now petitioners) had demolished the water course to make the parcel of land in square position. The appellants (now respondents No.3 to 5) had produced a copy of the `Warabandi', the site plan which was a very old one. As per the said site plan that had been produced before the C.W.P. No.17800 of 2009 [3] Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur (respondent No.1), the water course had been passing through Killa No.8 of Rectangle No.18 diagonally. As such, it was held that it was proved that the said water course was in existence for the last so many years, which had been demolished by the respondents (now petitioners). Keeping in mind the better interest of irrigation and production, the appeal was accepted under Section 30 FF of the Act and Punjab Amendment Act 23 of 1965 meaning thereby that as per old `Warabandi' and site plan, the said water course was demolished at Point AB out of Killa No.8 of Rectangle No.18 as such it was ordered to be restored and the order dated 4.3.2003 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Eastern Canal Division Canal Colony, Ferozepur (respondent No.2) was set aside. Aggrieved against the said order the petitioners have filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that according to the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur (respondent No.1), it only seemed that the respondents had demolished the water course to make the parcel of the land in square position. Therefore, the order dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure-P.1) of the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle is liable to be set aside. After perusing the record and considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be noticed that the matter regarding the manner in which irrigation is to be provided is to be considered and decided by the canal authorities who are the experts in this field and this Court is not to substitute its decision for that validly reached at by the canal C.W.P. No.17800 of 2009 [4] authorities. The Superintending Canal Officer (respondent No.1) having considered the material on record and also the site plan reached at the conclusion that the water course had been demolished at point AB out of Killa No.8 in Rectangle No.18 which has been ordered to be restored. The said decision is not shown to be, in any manner, perverse or illegal. Besides, this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction does not sit in appeal over the decision reached at by the canal authorities on due consideration and appreciation of evidence and material. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. November 20, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*/amit NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No