IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1633 of 2010 Date of decision : 24 .9.2010 Prithvi Singh … Petitioner Versus D.C.O.Sirsa and others …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.D.Khanna, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.Ashook Kumar Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ritu Bahri, J. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 16.10.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.1 whereby the order dated 5.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Mallekan W/S Sub Division Sirsa, has been set aside. The petitioner had made an application under Section 24(3) of the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, 29 of 1974 for restoration of the dismentalled watercourse in the chak of outlet R.D.1660-R Karamsana Minor of Village Mithanpura, Tehsil Ellenabad and District Sirsa. The matter was got investigated by the Ziledar and he recommended for restoration of the watercourse. After site inspection in the presence of Ziledar, Canal Patwari and both the parties, the Sub Divisional Canal Officer disposed of the application on 5.8.2009 (Annexure P-1). The restoration of the watercourse was allowed to the petitioner in Rect.No.110/14-17 North- South to save the standing crops of the applicant. It is clear from the CWP No.1633 of 2010 language of the order that watercourse was restored for one season to save the crops of the applicant. On appeal, a direction was given to the petitioner/respondent to go to alternate source existing watercourse at the site which can irrigate his field. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner was not present. However, Mr.Ashok Kumar Verma learned counsel for the respondent has appeared and submitted that the order 5.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) vide which benefit of watercourse was given to the petitioner, has attained finality. In the order dated 16.10.2009 (Annexure P-2), it has been observed that the standing crops were getting the irrigation water. This was verified by the site inspection conducted on 17.9.2009. The Divisional Canal Officer has not disturbed the order of the SDO dated 5.8.2009. As far as the present petition is concerned, order 5.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) has become final qua the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (Ritu Bahri) Judge 24.09.2010 sd 2