PHUMAN SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A portion of watercourse, through which the petitioner had been irrigating his fields for more than 20 years, was demolished by respondent No. 2, Smt. Piaro Devi. The petitioner moved an application under section 30-FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Divisional Canal Officer, vide his order Annexure P.2, held :

(2.) This order (Annexure P-3) has been impugned by the petitioner, Inter alia, on the ground that once it was found that the petitioner had been using the demolished watercourse for irrigating his fields for more than 20 years and that the said watercourse had been demolished by respondent No. 2, the Canal Authorities, on an application made by the aggrieved party, i.e. the petitioner, under section 30-FF of the Act, had no option but to order restoration of the demolished watercourse and that, in any case, the alternative watercourse could not be provided without following due procedure envisaged in Section 30-A of the Act, if for some reasons the restoration of demolished watercourse becomes impossible.

(3.) In the written statement on behalf of respondent No. 1, the assertions that the watercourse had been used by the petitioner for more than 20 years for irrigating his fields and that the said watercourse had been demolished by respondent No. 2, had been admitted but he has taken the stand that the watercourse, which has now been provided, is in the interest of irrigation.