BHAJAN SINGH Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION, PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the order of the Divisional Officer, Canals, Patiala dated 4th December, 1973 (Annexure P. 3), directing him to restore a watercourse, which allegedly was running through his field Nos. 197/1-20, 198/5-6 and had been demolished by him within even days from the receipt of that notice, otherwise he (Divisional Canal Officer) would himself restore the same at the costs of the petitioner in exercise of his power under section 30-FF of the Northern Indian Canal and Drainage Act. The challenge of the petitioner, on the basis of a Division Bench judgment of this Court, reported as Jagar Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer, Hissar, Bhakra Canal Circle, Hissar and others,1972 PunLJ 315, is that the Authorities under the Act can order the restoration of only those watercourses which had either been sanctioned in accordance with law or were there on account of an agreement between the parties or the party complaining of demolition had acquired any right by way of easement.

(2.) The return filed in the form of an affidavit of Shri Santokh Singh, Divisional Canal Officer, is that "it was established after enquiry that said watercourse is a running one which should be got restored as desired by the provisions of law under section 30-FF of the Canal Act. So the action taken in the matter is valid in the interest of Irrigation."

(3.) A bare reading of the above noted reply on behalf of the respondent-Authority indicates that the Authorities were completely oblivious of the limitations pointed out by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-noted judgment. Unless the authorities had come to the conclusion that the watercourse, alleged to have been demolished by the petitioner, was one of the types specified in the above-noted judgment, the Divisional Canal Officer obviously had no jurisdiction to order its restoration. There being no finding to that effect in the impugned order, the same has to be set aside. I order accordingly. Thus this petition succeeds to the extent indicated above, but with no order as to costs.