RAM SINGH Vs. SUB-DIVISONAL CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, Annexure P-10, dated 16.7.2002 passed by the Divisional Cana) Officer, W. S. Division, Kaithal. A firm finding of fact has been recorded and that too on inspection and checking of the records that petitioner has a Chak of other land Killa Nos. 25/2/10, 3/1, 8, 13/2 and 14 adjacent to Killa Nos. 25/15, 16, 17, 18, 23 to 25 which was found to be irrigated from the, watercourse GHI shown on the sketch of outlet RD 57670-L Sangatpura Minor and further that holding of petitioner can well be irrigated from other sources and that being so, there was no Justification to restore demolished watercourse under Section 24 of the Canal Act.

(2.) Despite findings to the effect aforesaid, so recorded in the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that HI from GHI is not a sanctioned watercourse as it only passes dirty water. We are afraid, this contention of learned counsel cannot be accepted as GHI as a whole, has been shown on the sketch of outlet RD 57670-L Sangatpura Minor and is a sanctioned watercourse. No merits. Dismissed.