CWP No. 12837 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12837 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: April 18, 2011 Harjeet Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur and others ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Ms. Pooja Chopra, Advocate, for respondent no. 3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. Respondent no. 3 filed an application under Section 30FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 with a prayer that the petitioner-Harjeet Singh had demolished the existing water course and, therefore, irrigation had been denied not only to the respondent but also to other shareholders of water outlet 43443/L Mamdot Minor. The application has been allowed vide impugned orders. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders are non-speaking and illegal in so much as four acres of land belonging to the petitioner would be bifurcated into two parts if the watercourse is restored, as prayed by the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 contends that the water CWP No. 12837 of 2009 2 course was running which is required to be restored, as ordered in the impugned orders. 4. De hors the various contentions, on the intervention of the Court and with the assistance of Mr. Sanjeev Kakkar, Ziledar, Khai, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, the parties have agreed to settle their dispute. Site plan marked as X is taken on record. As per the agreement between the parties which is also endorsed by Sh. Kakkar, the water course that would be restored, would be ABXZC marked in red during the proceedings in Court. Accordingly, the watercourse would run i.e. 'BX' with details as 33m on the dol of Kila Nos. 9 and 12, 10 and 11, XZ with details as on the dol in between 32 m Kila Nos. 15, 16 and 33m Kila Nos. 11, 20, further on the dol in between 34 m Kila No. 5 and 15m Kila No. 1. 5. In view of the agreement between the parties, this petition is disposed of. It is made clear that the petitioner shall enable the water course to run along the path reflected in the order. 18.04.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?