HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge here is to the orders dated 24.12.2010 (Annerxure P5) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Upper Bari Doab Canal Circle, Amritsar, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the impugned order dated 27.5.2010(Annexure P3), passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Madhopur Division, Upper Bari Doab Canal, Gurdaspur, was upheld thereby ordering the restoration of the water course.

(2.) The brief facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are, that respondent Nos.3 to 5 moved an application complaining that the petitioner has dismantled the water course, adversely effecting their facility of irrigation and the water course may be ordered to be restored. The Divisional Canal Officer, Madhopur Division, Upper Bari Doab Canal, Gurdaspur-respondent No.2, after hearing the parties found that the existence of the water course was supported by the area Ziledar and co-sharers. On the other hand, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the private respondents were irrigating their land, from the water course running along side the road, which was sanctioned one and was effective for irrigating the fields of the private respondents. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the water course which was sought to be restored by the private respondents, from point 'I' to point 'J', was the private water course of the petitioner, which was neither sanctioned water course nor a water course by way of prescription. It was also not a water course by way of agreement and was not subject to restoration. However, the Divisional Canal Officerrespondent No.2 without recording any finding, as required under Section 30 -FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, ordered the restoration of the water course in question, by passing his impugned order dated 27.5.2010(Annexure P3). Dissatisfied with the order, petitioner filed his appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer-respondent No.1, who dismissed the same vide his impugned order dated 24.12.2010 (Annexure P5).

(3.) Feeling aggrieved against the above said two orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition invoking its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.