IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1417 of 2010 (O and M) Date of Decision : February 03, 2011. Kramjit Singh ............. Appellant Versus Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Main Line Circle, Patiala, and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL. Present:- Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Manjri Nehru Kaul, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for the respondent/State. Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL). This appeal has been directed against order dated 26.05.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition No. 7144 of 2007 filed by the petitioner challenging the order 13.09.2006, passed by the Divisional Canal Officer as well as order dated 28.11.2006, passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, ordering the restoration of the demolition of water course, has been dismissed. In this case, when the watercourse from which the respondent was irrigating his fields, was illegally demolished by the appellant, he moved an application under Section 30-FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, (in short 'the Canal Act') to the Divisional Canal Officer, who was the competent authority to hear such cases. The Divisional Canal Officer, after seeking report from the Ziledar and SDO and after inspecting LPA No. 1417 of 2010 (O and M) -2- himself, found that the existing water course, which was running for the last thirty five years, was illegally demolished by the appellant and thereupon ordered the restoration of the same. The order of the Divisional Canal Officer in the appeal was affirmed by the Superintending Canal Officer (the appellate authority under the said Act). Both the orders were challenged in the aforesaid writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that no water course was ever existing or operated on the disputed site which is owned by the appellant, but the respondents under the garb of the proceedings under Section 30-FF of the the Canal Act illegally want to erect water course without payment of any compensation. According to the learned counsel, under Section 30-FF of the Canal Act, only public water course having sanctity of law could be restored, but under the garb of the said proceedings, no fresh water course in the land of a private owner could be curbed out or restored. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the disputed water course was existing on the alleged site from the last thirty five year and the respondents were irrigating their land through the said water course, who were taking water from outlet No. 360/Righ Lubana Minor. He further argued that the contention of the appellant that no water course was ever existing on the disputed site was not accepted by the authorities under the Canal Act, who after taking report from the Ziledar and the SDO found that the water course was existing on the disputed site from the last so many years and it was found that the said water course was demolished by the appellant without any justification and reason, therefore, the same was rightly ordered to be restored by the authorities under the Canal Act. LPA No. 1417 of 2010 (O and M) -3- After considering the submissions, we do not find any substance in the appeal. The Divisional Canal Officer, after seeking report from the Ziledar and the SDO and after inspecting the spot himself, found that the water course was existing which was running from the last so many years and the same was illegally demolished by the appellant. The said finding of fact was recorded by the authorities under the Canal Act after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties on the basis of report submitted by the Ziledar and the SDO. The said finding of fact was affirmed by the Superintending Canal Officer and the learned Single Judge has also dismissed the writ petition, while taking into consideration the said finding. Therefore, now at this stage in this appeal, this Court cannot go into the question of fact whether any water course was existing on the disputed site or not. As far as second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, that only public water course having sanctity of law could be restored under Section 30-FF of the Canal Act, is also without any substance. Section 3(1-A) and (2) of the Canal Act defines temporary water course and water course. According to Section 3(1-A) of the Canal Act, “Temporary Watercourse” means a water course which has been in existence for a continuous period of not less than six months prior to the date of its demolition, alteration, enlargement or obstruction, but which may not be recognized water course as hereinafter defined. “Watercourse” means, any channel which is supplied with water from a canal, but which is not maintained at the cost of the State Government, and all subsidiary works belonging to any such channel. The Divisional Canal Officer is within the power under Section 30-FF of the Canal Act to restore the demolished water course or temporary water course. Thus, it has been found as a fact that a water course was existing on the disputed site which was being used by the LPA No. 1417 of 2010 (O and M) -4- respondents for irrigating their fields. Therefore, when the same was found illegally demolished by the appellant, the Canal Authority was within the right to restore such a water course, even though that water course was not established by the Canal Department. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the Canal Authorities as well as the learned Single Judge, affirming the orders passed by the Canal Authorities. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE February 03, 2011. sjks.