IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 392 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 04.03.2011 Manohar Singh .... APPELLANT Versus Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakhra Water Services Circle No.1, Hisar and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.1.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP NO. 1643 of 2011), filed by appellant Manohar Singh, challenging the orders dated 19.7.2010 (Annexure P-1); 18.10.2010 (Annexure P-3); and 15.12.2010 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Deosar Water Services Sub Division, Hisar (respondent No.3); the Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar Water Services Division, Hisar (rspondent No.2); and the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakhra Water Services Circle No.1, Hisar (respondent No.1), has been dismissed. LPA No. 392 of 2011 -2- We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned order as well as the aforesaid orders, passed by the canal authorities. In the present case, the canal authorities have recorded a finding of fact to the effect that the appellant has obstructed the watercourse and caused damage to it, which is being used for carrying water for irrigation and for cattle drinking water. While recording the aforesaid finding of fact, the canal authorities in exercise of the powers under Section 24 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), directed the appellant to remove the Patnala, which is causing damage to the water course and obstructing free flow of water. During the course of arguments, it has not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that under Section 24 of the Act, the canal authorities have the power to order for the removal of the obstructions to the watercourse and issue necessary direction to the person, making such obstructions. However, learned counsel tried to challenge the finding of fact recorded by the canal authorities. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any reason to go into the question of fact and the findings, recorded by the canal authorities regarding the obstruction caused by the appellant in the watercourse. Since the canal authorities were within their jurisdiction to order for the removal of certain obstructions to the watercourse, we are not LPA No. 392 of 2011 -3- inclined to entertain this appeal. Dismissed. However, if the alleged obstruction has still not been removed, the authorities are directed to remove the same immediately and report the matter to this court. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE March 04, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE