Civil Writ Petition No.24387 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.24387 of 2011 Date of Decision:23.12.2011 Charanjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus Superintending Canal Officer and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record is that, Parkash Singh son of Mangal Singh(respondent No.3) moved an application(Annexure P-1) before the XEN, Irrigation & Canal Department, Patiala, inter alia, pleading that he used to irrigate his land through the medium of watercourse of outlet bearing No.70000/Left, Bandobast No.54 from Mihaun to Francewala. Kulwant Singh and Balraj Singh sons of Ajaib Singh have illegally demolished its portion, denominated by letters “CD”, adversely affecting the irrigation of his fields and causing loss to him. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, he prayed for restoration of the demolished portion of the watercourse in question, in view of the provisions of Section 30FF(2) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act 8 of 1873 and the Relevant Rules(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and the Relevant Rules”). 2. The Divisional Canal Officer, Devigarh Division(respondent No.2) (for brevity “the DCO”) accepted the prayer of respondent No.3 and ordered the restoration of the indicated demolished portion of the watercourse, by way of Civil Writ Petition No.24387 of 2011 2 impugned order dated 27.05.2009(Annexure P-6). Sequelly, the appeal filed by petitioner-Charanjit Singh and others was dismissed as well by the Superintending Canal Officer(respondent No.1)(for short “the SCO”), by means of impugned order dated 16.11.2009(Annexure P-7). 3. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-6 and P-7), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 5. However, the argument of the learned counsel that, the supply of canal water is not regular in the village and since, respondent No.3 was irrigating his land from the tubewell of the petitioner, so, there was no occasion for the canal authorities to restore the disputed portion of the watercourse in question, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. As is evident from the record that, respondent No.3 moved an application(Annexure P-1). The DCO sent the matter to the S.D.O., Devigarh for investigation. The concerned Zilledar got the site map prepared from circle Patwari and recorded the statements of the co-sharers. The SCO recommended to restore the demolished portion “CD” of the watercourse of outlet bearing No.70000/Left through Bandobast No.54 along side the Pahi. 7. In the wake of recommendation of the SDO, Devigarh, the DCO issued notice under Section 30FF of the Act to the concerned co-sharers and after examining Parkash Singh(respondent No.3), Charanjit Singh(petitioner) and Baldev Singh son of Ajaib Singh, came to a definite conclusion that the demolished portion of the indicated watercourse, depicted as “CD” is a part of outlet No.70000/Left, Bandobast No.54, which was running for the last 40 years. The same was illegally demolished by the petitioner and ordered its(watercourse) Civil Writ Petition No.24387 of 2011 3 restoration, after following the due procedure, by virtue of impugned order dated 27.05.2009(Annexure P-6), the operative part of which is as under:- “After perusing the case and hearing the statements of both parties, I came to conclusion that the demand of applicants is genuine. Due to demolition of water course, CD through bandobasti No.54 along side Pahi, the irrigation of land of applicant has stopped. Applicant has also produced canal girdawari for the year 1999-2000, which is attached with case. The same clearly proves that land of applicant was getting canal water and due to demolition of water course the water has stopped. Therefore, the demand of other party cannot be accepted. Therefore, as per recommendation of the Sub Division Officer, Devigarh, and for restoring canal irrigation the demolished water course is restored at point CD as shown in map through bandobasti No.54 along side Pahi, under Section 30FF of the amended Canal and Drainage Act No.8 of 1873.” 8. Not only that, the order(Annexure P-6) of the DCO was further upheld by the SCO, after following the due procedure, through the medium of impugned order(Annexure P-7). At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation or material, much less cogent, even to suggest remotely that how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal, or warrant any interference by this Court in this relevant connection. 9. In this manner, the DCO and the SCO have recorded the findings of fact, based on the material, that the demolished portion of the indicated watercourse, depicted as “CD” is a part of outlet No.70000/Left, Bandobast No.54, which was in existence for the last 40 years. Respondent No.3 was irrigating his land from the said watercourse, which was illegally demolished by the petitioner. 10. Meaning thereby, the canal authorities have recorded the cogent grounds in this regard and rightly ordered its(watercourse) restoration. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned Civil Writ Petition No.24387 of 2011 4 counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned orders(Annexures P-6 and P-7) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. December 23, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE