SULAKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant writ petition, the petitioners have impugned the orders dated 2.6.2000 (Annexure P-6) and 22.8.2000 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Gurdaspur and Superintending Canal Officer, Amritsar, respondent No. 3 and 2 respectively, vide which the demolition of water course by the petitioners has been restored under Section 30FF of the North India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873.

(2.) BEFORE the canal authorities, an application was filed by the private respondents for restoration of the water course in question by alleging that the water course marked at A, B, C and R was in working condition for the last many years and the same was being used for canal irrigation. The petitioners illegally and without any authority demolished the water course from mark A, B, Q1, Q2 and Q3 and stopped the canal irrigation which has caused substantial damage to their crops. On the said application, a report of the Ziledar was called, in which he reported that the alleged water course was being utilised for canal irrigation for the last so many years and the same was illegally demolished by the petitioners. It was recommended that the said water course, which is an old one should be restored at points A, B, Q1, Q2 and Q3. The Division Canal Officer, after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties and after recording their statements, came to the conclusion that the water course described with mark A, B, Q1, Q2, Q3 and CR at outlet No. 57050- Fateh Nangal-Distributory was in use and was being utilised by the private respondents for canal irrigation for several years. It was further found that a portion of the said water course mark A, B, Q1, Q2 and Q3 was illegally demolished by the petitioners. After recording the said finding, the said demolished water course was ordered to be restored. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal (Annexure P-8) under Section 30 FF (4) of the Act, which was also dismissed by the Superintending Canal Officer. The petitioners have challenged both the aforesaid orders in this writ petition.

(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable. So far as the provisions of the Act are concerned, these deal with both (authorised and unauthorised) water courses. The water course in dispute was a water course which was being used by the private respondents for a long time. The finding has been recorded by the canal authorities that the water course was existing and the same was being used by the private respondents. It was also found that the said water course was illegally demolished. Therefore, it was ordered to be restored. I find no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the canal authorities.