AMARJEET Vs. DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order dated 10.8.2000 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Sonepat dismissing the appeal against the order of the Sub Divisional Canal Officer whereby the application of Kuldip Singh respondent for restoration of watercourse AB on Killa No. 98/19/1 has been allowed and the watercourse ordered to be restored. On an application filed by Kuldip Singh the procedure prescribed under Section 24 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (for short the Act) was followed and objections invited. Jai Singh father of the petitioner was present before the Sub Divisional Canal Officer and took the plea that he had not dismantled the watercourse nor was the watercourse in existence and, therefore, the question of its restoration did not arise. The Sub Divisional Canal Officer inspected the spot and came to the conclusion that the watercourse was running on the Northern side of Killa No. 98/19/1 which had been dismantled by Jai Singh and, therefore, he ordered its restoration. This order was affirmed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Sonepat in appeal. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) WE have heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned orders find no ground to interfere with the same. What is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the alleged watercourse was not a sanctioned one the same could not be restored by the canal authorities under Section 24 of the aforesaid Act. We are unable to accept this contention. No such plea was raised before the canal authorities. The question whether watercourse in question was a sanctioned one or not is a question of fact which ought to have been raised before the canal authorities. All that was contended before the authorities below was that the father of the petitioner had not demolished the watercourse in question. That plea was negatived by the authorities after spot inspection. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned orders. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition desmissed.