Civil Writ Petition No.20305 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20305 of 2011 Date of Decision:03.11.2011 Baru Ram and others ......Petitioners Versus The Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Ashok Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record is that, Telu Ram and Bhoop Singh sons of Mai Ram-private respondent Nos.4 and 5 were claimed to have been irrigating their land in question, by means of water channel/watercourse, denominated by letters 'AB' in dispute, which was dismantled by the petitioners. In the wake of acceptance of the application filed by them(respondent Nos.4 and 5), the Sub Divisional Canal Officer(for brevity “the SDCO”) ordered its restoration by virtue of impugned order dated 21.01.2009 (Annexure P-3), in exercise of his powers under the provisions of The Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, 1974(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. Dissatisfied with the order(Annexure P-3), the petitioners filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Divisional Canal Officer(for short “the DCO”), by way of impugned order dated 05.03.2009(Annexure P-4). 3. Aggrieved by the orders(Annexures P-3 and P-4), the petitioners filed the revision petition, which was also dismissed as time-barred, by the Civil Writ Petition No.20305 of 2011 2 Superintending Canal Officer(for brevity “the SCO”), through the medium of impugned order dated 24.06.2011(Annexure P-5). 4. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present civil writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-3 to P-5), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this regard. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, since the SDCO, DCO and SCO, did not follow the proper procedure, so, the impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal, sans merit. 7. As is evident from the record that, private respondent Nos.4 and 5 moved an application, for restoration of the indicated watercourse, which was dismantled by the petitioners. The matter was got investigated by the DCO through the Zilledar, who submitted his report, after spot inspection and recommended for the restoration of watercourse in dispute. The SDCO, after issuing notices to the petitioners and hearing the parties, recorded a finding of fact based on the material that, the indicated watercourse was running since long, respondent Nos.4 and 5 were irrigating their land through it as per existing turn- wise(warabandi), they have no other watercourse to irrigate their land, the petitioners have intentionally dismantled the same, in order to harass them and the abovesaid watercourse is a permanent watercourse. Hence, the SDCO has rightly accepted the claim of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in this respect. 8. Not only that, the decision of the SDCO was sequelly upheld by the DCO, vide impugned order dated 05.03.2009(Annexure P-4), the operative part of which is as under:- “I have carefully examined the record including khaka plan, warabandi record and heard both the parties at length. Notices were properly served upon all concerned through Halqa Patwari. From the perusal of warabandi Civil Writ Petition No.20305 of 2011 3 record shows that the watercourse which has been dismantled by the appellant is sanction in warabandi. Perusal of S.D.C.O. Hisar-I decision dated 21.01.2009 also proved that watercourse has been dismantled and irrigation of the respondent has been stopped. Site of disputed watercourse was also inspected by the undersigned on dated 05.03.2009 and found that appellant has dismantled the watercourse AB in Killa No.109/16 Southern side leading to the holding of respondent and others. During site inspection, it is also found that lined watercourse running along the holding of Baru Ram Eastern side and it is not possible to shift the watercourse which has been lined. There is no other alternative alignment available for the irrigation of the respondent area. Keeping in view of above, I found no weight in appeal and demand as claimed by the appellant is rejected. Decision of S.D.C.O. Hisar-I dated 21.01.2009 is upheld.” 9. At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any legal violation or material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this relevant connection. 10. In this manner, the canal authorities have recorded the cogent grounds and rightly restored the watercourse in question. 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 been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned orders 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 petitioners. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. November 03, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No.20305 of 2011 4