GURDIT SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are residents of village Withman Chak Wassan, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, have filed this petition for quashing orders dated 17.2.1988 copies of which are Annexures P-1 and P4 to the writ petition. Annexure P-1 is the order of Divisional Canal Officer 'Madhopur Division' District Gurdaspur passed under Section 30-FF(2) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 while Annexure P-4 is the order of Superintending Canal Officer, Upper Bari Doab Canal Circle, Amritsar who had dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and returned a finding that the watercourse was in existence and was demolished by petitioner Gurdip Singh and had affirmed the order of Divisional Canal Officer.

(2.) The challenge to the impugned order is primarily on the ground that respondent No. 1 had affirmed the order of respondent No. 2 without examining the matter and correctness of the allegations was not gone into. The other plea is that there was no authorised watercourse. As such the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

(3.) The State has -filed a detailed written statement and has controverted the stand of the petitioners. In para 4 of the written statement it is stated that respondent No. 2 Divisional Canal Officer, Madhopur U.B.D.C Gurdaspur finally decided the case on 17.2.1988 after giving full opportunity to the par-ties to prove their case. Notice of the hearing was given by the Divisional Canal Officer and both the parties attended the Court on 17.2.1988. In para 6 it is stated that petitioner No. I has allowed the concession of water-course to respondent No. 3 Smt. Kulwant Kaur. It is stated that the petitioner himself admitted the existence of the old water-course and its subsequent demolition by him.