IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1061 of 2010 Date of Decision: February 16, 2011 Jagtar Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing order dated 29.9.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot Canal Division, Faridkot; and Order dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure P-5) by the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana. 2. Respondent No.4, Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, a widow, CWP No.1061 of 2010 [2] filed an application to the effect that water course that was irrigating the field of the said respondent, had been demolished by the petitioner who is said to be an NRI. The irrigation to the field of the respondent accordingly has been disrupted. 3. Vide Order Annexure P-2, the Divisional Canal Officer allowed the application and directed restoration of demolished khal of Mogha Burji 23433 T.L. Fullewala Minor, Village Samadh Bhai. Accordingly application under Section 30-FF of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 has been allowed. 4. The petitioner carried an appeal which has been dismissed by the Superintending Canal Officer. 5. So as to assist the learned counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. M.L. Monga, Ziledar, Bagha Purana, Faridkot Canal Division, is present in Court and states that the order has already been implemented. Water course has been restored on 15.1.2010. Land of the respondent is now being irrigated. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on Annexure P-6. Annexure P-6 does not indicate the land of the petitioner or the respondent. It does not depict clearly the water course or water channel or even water outlets and therefore, cannot assist the case of the petitioner. 7. The Ziledar who has come to assist the Court, in reference to the original record, contends that on reading from site inspection report dated 7.8.2009 it transpires that water course from Point A-B has been demolished, water course from point B-C exists. 8. In view of the fact that findings have been recorded CWP No.1061 of 2010 [3] on the basis of relevant material, no interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is called for. The facts and circumstances do not call for judicial review of the orders passed. Defect in procedure that has casued manifest injustice, or lack of jurisdiction has not been shown. 9. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) February 16, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?