CWP No.8322 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8322 of 2009 Date of decision:01.09.2010 Nanak Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS Superintending Canal Officer, Irrigation and Canal Department, Amritsar, and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present: Mr.Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr.R.K.Arya, Advocate for respondents no.3 to 8. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA.J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 20.05.2008 and 15.07.2008, passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Madhopur Division, Gurdaspur and the Superintending Canal Officer, Amritsar, respectively. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as private respondents are required to take water from the sanctioned watercourse, which is admittedly in existence, canal authorities have committed an error in restoring the watercourse which is neither sanctioned nor reflected in the revenue record maintained by canal authorities. It is argued that neither the Divisional Canal Officer nor the Superintending Canal Officer, have recorded any finding as to the nature of this watercourse i.e. whether it is a sanctioned watercourse, a watercourse by prescription or a watercourse excavated by agreement. In view of this fundamental error, the impugned orders are a nullity and should therefore, be set aside. CWP No.8322 of 2009 -2- Counsel for the private respondents however, submits that the watercourse 'ABCDEF' has been in existence for the last more than forty years but the portion 'BDE' has been demolished. The petitioner also draws water from this watercourse and therefore, the very basis of the petitioner's opposition to the restoration of the watercourse, is unsustainable. It is further submitted that as held by canal authorities, as the alignment of the sanctioned watercourse is defective, the private respondents fields cannot be irrigated. It is submitted that as finding of facts recorded by canal authorities, are legal and valid, the writ petition should be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to accede, to the arguments addressed by counsel for the petitioner. The Divisional Canal Officer has recorded a firm finding of fact, that the watercourse 'ABCDEF' has been demolished at point 'BDE'. The argument that the watercourse 'ABCDEF' is neither a sanctioned watercourse nor a watercourse excavated by prescription or agreement, cannot be accepted as the petitioner is himself drawing water from this watercourse. In addition, the alignment of the sanctioned watercourse is defective and therefore, the private respondents cannot irrigate their land, from the sanctioned watercourse. As the findings of fact recorded by canal authorities do not call for interference, the writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 01.09.2010 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE