CWP No.6216 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.6216 of 2010 Date of Decision: 6.4.2010 Jagdeep .....Petitioner Vs. Divisional Canal Officer and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 1.4.2010 and 19.2.2010, passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana Water Services Division, Narwana and the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Dhamtan Water Services Sub Division Narwana, directing restoration of a water course `AB'. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the absence of any evidence or finding that the water course was in existence, the Sub Divisional Canal Officer has ordered restoration of the water course. It is further submitted that the alleged water course does not fall within the expression `water course' as defined under Section 2(15) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), and, therefore, no order could have been passed restoring this water course. It CWP No.6216 of 2010 2 is further argued that as per the site plan, respondent no.3's land is irrigated by other water courses, there was no necessity for restoring the water course `AB'. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold that these orders are, in any manner, illegal. The Sub Divisional Canal Officer has recorded a finding of fact that the water course `AB' was in existence and has been demolished. The argument that respondent no.3's fields are irrigated by two other water courses is irrelevant, as the question was one of restoration of the water course and not whether other water courses are available. The argument that the water course `AB' does not fall within the definition of `water course' as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act, cannot be accepted. The definition of the expression `water course' is wide enough to include the water course, restoration whereof has been ordered by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer and affirmed by the Divisional Canal Officer. No merit. Dismissed. 6.4.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE