Civil Writ Petition No.22782 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22782 of 2011 Date of Decision:09.12.2011 Vinod Pahwa ......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 contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, Harinder Singh and Joginder Singh, private respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the owners and in possession of the land in dispute, situated in the Village Harbanspura, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib. They were stated to have been irrigating their land through the watercourse in question, denominated by letters at points “C to D” and “E to E1”, depicted in the site plan(Annexure P-1) from the outlet bearing No.2700/Left IR, from the very beginning, which was demolished on 23.12.2010 by Ira Infrastructures India Limited, stopping the irrigation of their land. The petitioner-Company claimed to have purchased the land of Ira Infrastructures India Limited. Finding no alternative, they(private respondent Nos.3 and 4) moved an application before the Divisional Canal Officer, Devigarh Division Patiala (respondent No.2)(for brevity “the DCO”), for its restoration. 2. The DCO, after taking into consideration the entire material on record, accepted the application of the private respondents and ordered the restoration of watercourse in question, vide impugned order dated 30.06.2011 Civil Writ Petition No.22782 of 2011 2 (Annexure P-3), in view of the provisions of Section 30FF(2) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act 8 of 1873(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 3. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-3), Vinod Pahwa son of S.P.Pahwa, Director of Wembley Realtors Private Limited and Ira Infrastructures India Limited, filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Superintending Canal Officer(respondent No.1)(for short “the SCO”), by way of impugned order dated 15.11.2011(Annexure P-4). 4. Petitioner-Vinod Pahwa claiming himself to be the Director of Wembley Realtors Private Limited and Ira Infrastructures India Limited, still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-3 and P-4), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition in this relevant connection. 6. However, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the existence of the recognized watercourse was not established, so, the DCO and the SCO committed a legal mistake in restoring it, is neither tenable, nor the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in case Joginder Singh Versus The Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Ghaggar Water Services Sub Division, Tohana and others, 2002(2) P.L.J. 338, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein the Canal Authorities did not pass the speaking order. On the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of that case, it was observed (para 13) as under:- “A reading of the orders passed clearly indicates that these facts were not noticed by the authorities below. Authorities under the Act are exercising the quasi-judicial powers and are supposed to give reasoning and pass a speaking order in conformity with the provisions of the Act and Rules. Civil Writ Petition No.22782 of 2011 3 Application of mind is clearly lacking in this case, as such, dispute requires proper enquiry and investigation at the level of Canal Authorities.” Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the SDCO, for its fresh decision. 7. Possibly, no one can dispute in regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the instant controversy. 8. As is evident from the record that, the private respondents are the owners of the land in dispute. They claimed that they were irrigating their land from the watercourse in question from the outlet bearing No.2700/Left IR, which was demolished on 23.12.2010 by Ira Infrastructure India Limited, culminating into stoppage the irrigation of their land and causing huge losses to them and other co-sharers in this respect. Therefore, they moved an application for restoration of the indicated watercourse. The DCO sent the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer (for short “the SDO”) and the Zilledar Amloh, for investigation. They got prepared the site plan from the Circle Patwari and recorded the statements of all the co- sharers. The SDO inspected the spot and submitted a detailed report to the effect that the disputed watercourse was running, meant for irrigation of the land of the private respondents, which has been filled with earth and stones closing it. The SDO recommended the restoration of the existing watercourse. After receiving the report, the DCO issued notices to the concerned parties, wherein the private respondents and Manik Gulati, Project Manager appeared on behalf of Ira Infrastructure India Limited. He(DCO) himself inspected the spot, recorded the statements, perused the record and after hearing the parties, recorded a finding of fact that the watercourse in question was in existence, which was demolished by Ira Infrastructure India Limited and ordered its restoration, by passing a detailed speaking impugned order dated 30.06.2011(Annexure P-3), which in substance is as under:- “After perusing the case and hearing the statements of parties, I came to Civil Writ Petition No.22782 of 2011 4 conclusion that demand of applicants is justifiable. On 27.4.2011 spot was inspected and it was found that water course point BC has been filled with earth and passage has been made and water course point CD is demolished at spot. Water course point D, D-1, E is existing at spot. Point E, E-1 is demolished at spot. Point E-1, F water course is existing at spot which clearly shows that canal water course has been demolished. Applicants have also produced copy of canal Girdawari, same was also seen. Therefore, as per recommendation of Sub Divisional Officer, Amloh, and in interest of better irrigation demolished water course point BC by way of underground pipe and thereafter open water course point CD from northern wat of Killa No.19 of muraba No.34, demolished water course point E, E-1 from Killa No.4-7-14-17 of muraba No.36 is restored under Section 30 FF of the amended Canal and Drainage Act 8 of 1873. This water course divides land of respondent in two parts. In case, they want to shift this water course to one side of land then they can file application of changing alignment under Canal Act.” 9. Not only that, the order(Annexure P-3) of the DCO was further upheld by the SCO(Appellate Authority), through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P-4). In this manner, the SCO has also reiterated the existence and demolition of the watercourse in question. 10. Sequelly, 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 and would invite any interference by this Court in this context. 11. Meaning thereby, the DCO and the SCO have analyzed the entire material on record in the right perspective, came to a definite conclusion that the indicated watercourse was in existence, which was subsequently dismantled by Ira Infrastructure India Limited, recorded the cogent grounds in this regard and rightly ordered its 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. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has Civil Writ Petition No.22782 of 2011 5 been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. December 09, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No