CWP NO.22558 OF 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** CWP NO.22558 OF 2011 Date of decision: December 06, 2011. Bharat Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Divisional Canal Officer and others. ...Respondents. *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR *** Present: Shri Paramjeet Singh Jammu, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J 1. The crux of the facts which needs necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that Amar Singh son of Ram Chand (respondent No.3) moved an application dated 23.06.2011 (Annexure P-1), before the Sub Divisional Canal Officer (for brevity SDCO) for restoration of the water course meant to irrigate his land, which was stated to have been dismentalled by petitioners Bharat Singh and others. The SDCO examined the matter and after following the due procedure, came to the conclusion that the disputed water course denominated by letters A and B in Rect./Killa No. 117//13- 14/2 was in existence which was demolished by the petitioners. Consequently, he ordered its restoration by impugned order dated 22.08.2011 (Annexure P-3). 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2011 (Annexure P-3), the petitioners filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the Divisional Canal Officer (for short DCO) by means of impugned order dated CWP NO.22558 OF 2011 2 02.11.2011 (Annexure P-4). 3. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition challenging the impugned orders (Annexure P-3) and (Annexure P-4) invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire material, to my mind there is no merit in this writ petition. 5. However, the cosmetic arguments of learned counsel that since the disputed water course AB was not in existence so the SDCO and DCO wrongly ordered its restoration, sans merits. As is evident from the record that SDCO recorded the statements of relevant parties, examined the report of the Field Officers, material on record and came to a definite conclusion that the indicated water course AB was in existence, meant to irrigate the land of respondent No.3, which was dismentalled by the petitioners, damaging his crops. Therefore, he ordered the restoration of the water course in question. 6. Not only that the DCO has up-held his decision and dismissed the appeal of the petitioners by way of order dated 2.11.2011 (Annexure P- 4), the operative part of which is as under:- “Site was visited by the undersigned on 27.09.2011 and found through the obstruction in the shape of a temporary katcha small room has been newly constructed on the alleged alignment of demolished water course i.e in Rect.Killa No. 117/13 but it was clear that the same has unauthorisedly constructed after the filing of the application under consideration and this event has nowhere pointed out uptill hearing the case by the undersigned. In this way the obstruction has no meaning whereas the clear marks remains of the dismentalled alleged water course on which CWP NO.22558 OF 2011 3 the wari of the respondent stands sanctioned since 2001 were found which indicates that the alleged water course was running for the irrigation of the land of the respondent and no other/alternate water course is available for his irrigation. Moreover, the alternate water course as explained from the appellant side is neither in existence in Killa No. 17 and 18 of Rect. No. 110 nor the remain of its demolition were found there. The site facts are evident that the alleged water course was certainly in existence prior to its demolition and its restoration in Killa No. 13-14/1, of Rect No.117 is necessary for the irrigation of the land of the respondent. In view of the above circumstance it is observed that the SDCO has passed the right decision under the provision of the Canal Act and undersigned finds no patent reason to disturb the same. Therefore, the decision of the SDCO is upheld and the appeal is dismissed under Section 24(4) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act 29 of 1974”. 7. In this manner, the SDCO and DCO have concurrently found the existence of water course in question, which was dismentalled by the petitioners. There is no other alternative water course for irrigation of land of respondent No.3. Hence, to my mind, the Canal Authorities have rightly ordered the restoration of the water course, recorded the valid reasons and rightly negated the claim of the petitioners in this relevant connection. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner. 9. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. December 06, 2011. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Malik Judge