GIAN SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Superintending Officer (Canals), Upper Bari Doab Canal Area, Amritsar dated January 4, 1993, affirming, on appeal, the order of the Divisional Officer (Canals), Majithia Division, Amritsar restoring the water-course which was dismantled in part by the petitioner.

(2.) Sarvshri Hari Singh, Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh sons of Sampuran Singh of village Kotla Gujran, Tehsil and District Amritsar, moved a petition under Section 30-FF of the Northern Indian Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (for short, the Act) before the Divisional Officer (Canals), Majithia Division, Upper Bari Doab Canal, Amritsar, for restoration of the water-course which had been dismantled by the petitioner. The Divisional Officer (Canals), after enquiry, found that the water-course C.G.H.I. was in existence at the spot and its part 'G.H.I' had been dismantled. He ordered its restoration under Section 30-FF(2) of the Act. The petitioner, aggrieved against the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, challenged the same in appeal before the Superintending Officer (Canals), Upper Bari Doab Canal, Circle, Amritsar. He got the matter enquired into through the Ziledar Ilaqa and on receipt of his report and after hearing the parties, he upheld the order of the Divisional Officer (Canals) observing thus :-

(3.) Learned Counsel submitted that the disputed watercourse was an unauthorised watercourse and as such the Canal Officers had no jurisdiction to order its restoration and that they can order restoration of an authorised water-course only. In support of his submission, he relied upon Division Bench decision of this Court in Jagar Singh v. Superintending Canals Officer, Hissar Bhakra Canal Circle, Hissar, 1972 74 PunLR 315, and a Single Bench decision of this Court in Ram Kumar v. Bhim Singh, 198 L.R.S. (Pb.) 770. In Jagar Singh's case , the Court, after examining the provisions of Sections 3(2) and 30-FF of the Act, came to the conclusion that these provisions embrace within their ambit an authorised water-course and that a water-course as defined under the Act would not include within its ambit a water-course which has no lawful existence. This judgment was followed in Ram Kumar's case also.