IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14311 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 08, 2011 Balwant Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. On 6.12.2010, SDC Kaithal, on an application of private respondents, ordered restoration of a temporary watercourse, which had been allegedly dismantled by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, which was dismissed by DCO, Kaithal on 28.6.2011. The petitioner has accordingly approached this court against these two orders. While directing restoration of the watercourse, the SDCO had inspected the site. It was seen that the watercourse AB in Killa No.62/2-3 Southern line and 62/3 Eastern line in dispute has been demolished by the petitioner, due to which the irrigation of the respondents had been stopped at the site. A perusal of SDCO order would show that he had inspected the site on 23.10.2010 in the presence of both the parties. During inspection, he found that as per the map, Khal ABC has been demolished. Notice was issued to the petitioner to restore the Khal within ten days, but he declined to receive the notice. As per the Civil Writ Petition No.14311 of 2011 : 2 : report of the Patwari Canal, the Khal was not restored upto 22.10.2010. Due to closure of this Khal, the canal irrigation of the respondents was stopped. Accordingly, the restoration of the Khal was ordered. These orders were passed under Section 24(3) of the Haryana Canal and Water Supply Act. This decision of SDCO was found to be correct and accordingly the DCO held that no change was required. There is a positive factual finding recorded by the authorities that the Khal, may be temporary one, but was demolished. Result was that the respondents were denied irrigation facilities by Canal Authorities. The restoration order, as passed and upheld by the DCO, appears to be fair, just and reasonable and passed after hearing both the sites. Reference made by the counsel to the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Joginder Singh Versus The Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Ghaggar Water Services Sub Division, Tohana and others, 2002(2) PLJ 338 would not support his case. It was in a different context that the DCO had failed to give finding as to whether the watercourse in dispute was sanctioned one or same was running at the spot on the basis of an agreement between the parties. This order was found to be non- speaking and hence the matter was remitted back for fresh decision on merits. I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed. Dismissed. August 08, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE