IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 238 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 15, 2009 Subegh Singh …Appellant Versus Superintending Canal Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate, for the appellant. 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. The findings recorded by the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer in categorical terms is that watercourse ABC was running from the head of the outlet to the land of the applicant-respondent No. 3 through the land of the appellant. In the interest of better irrigation, the watercourse ABC has been ordered to be restored in the old position in accordance with Section 30 FF (3) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act 8 of 1873 (Punjab Amendment Act 23 of 1965). We find no ground to entertain the appeal. Accordingly the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) April 15, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor