IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 633 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 21, 2009 Subegh Singh and another ...Petitioner Versus Superintendent Canal Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenges order dated 5.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner-appellants have approached this Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing order dated 7.11.2006 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala (P-3). It is pertinent to notice that the Superintending Canal Officer has recorded it as a fact that the water course ‘ABCDE’ was a sanctioned water course and the petitioner-appellants have been irrigating their fields from that water course. In support of the LPA No. 633 of 2009 (O&M) aforesaid finding the Divisional Canal Officer as well as the Superintending Canal Officer have referred to the record showing Bari (Turn) of the petitioner-appellants for irrigation of their fields since 1990. It has further been found that the water course was sanctioned and running on the spot. Such a sanctioned water course was ordered to be restored. The grievance made by the petitioner-appellants before the learned Single Judge was that restoration of the water course would bifurcate the land belonging to them, as is shown by Blue colour lines in the site plan (P-5). A close examination of the site plan would reveal that the water course runs along with the passage, which is shown in Red colour, except a small portion. The learned Single Judge has refused to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 and has dismissed the petition after hearing the rival contentions. Learned Single Judge has also noticed the proposal of the petitioner- appellants that the private respondents may have their water course underground, which would result into overcoming the difficulty faced by the petitioner-appellants. Learned Single Judge left it open to the parties to sit together and decide amicably the aforesaid issue upholding the orders of the Superintending Canal Officer. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner- appellants, we are of the view that the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Superintending Canal Officer as well as by the learned Single Judge of this Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Demarcated water course Mark ‘ABCDE’ has been ordered to be restored. The petitioner-appellants 2 LPA No. 633 of 2009 (O&M) have been irrigating their fields from this very water course since 1990, which appears to have been dismantled by them. Learned Single Judge has taken correct view by dismissing the petition. Any other view would have resulted in disputed questions of facts and there is no material on record to come to a finding other than the one recorded by the Divisional Canal Officer as well as the Superintending Canal Officer. There is thus no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merit, we do not feel the necessity of passing any order on the miscellaneous applications seeking condonation of delay in filing abd re-filing the appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) July 21, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3