Civil Writ Petition No. 10983 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 10983 of 1989 Date of decision : 18.02.2010 Harnam Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The present writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana (hereinafter to be referred as appellate authority) while exercising the power under Section 68(6) of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act VIII of 1873 on the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.04.1989 passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Ferozepur Division. In this case the respondent No. 3 was getting his share of water along the alignment ABC and the petitioner was taking his Wari from him at point 'B' and would leave at point C as shown in the sketch plan Annexure P-1. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 purchased Khata No. 28 where supply of water was being taken for purchased Khata from point D. The D.C.O. has allowed the respondent No. 3 to take water for his area from point C instead of point D. The only point urged by the petitioner before the Superintending Canal Officer was that there was no water course from point C to C'. So the Civil Writ Petition No. 10983 of 1989 2 respondent No. 3 should not be allowed to take Wari at point C. The counsel for the respondent No. 3 informed the appellate authority that the appellant filed Civil Suit No. 126 dated 03.02.1989 in the court of Additional, Senior Sub-Judge, Faridkot and in that suit a local commissioner was appointed to inspect the site to ascertain the Khal C-C' in dispute who vide his report dated 23.02.1989 established the existence of the Khal. After going through the record and sketch plan the appellate authority came to the conclusion that Khal C-C' was in existence. He thus, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the present petition was preferred before this court. The case has been called out several times since morning. However, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Same was the situation on the last date of hearing. The case remained displayed on the digital display board to await counsel for the petitioner. It appears that petitioner is no longer interested in pursuing this petition. Dismissed for non-prosecution. February 18, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE