LAKHWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.03.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 2-Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakhra Main Line Circle, Patiala and order dated 17.01.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No. 3-Divisional Canal Officer, Devigarh Division, Patiala, District Patiala whereby restoration of alleged dismantled watercourse by the petitioner has been ordered without considering the revenue records specifically Aks Latha. In short, brief facts of the case are to the effect that the petitioner, respondent No. 7 and others are co-sharers as shown in jamabandi for the year 2006-07 and their land is being irrigated through canal water from Outlet No. 14452-L Rajwaha Rasoli Minor. Respondent No. 7 along with his father is in possession of khasra No. 11//20/1, 12//16, 17, 18, 14 and khasra No. 12//13, 14 and some area of 12//16, 12//19/2 duly irrigated by the aforesaid outlet. There is no khal in existence in rect. No. 12 and khasra No. 13. The same has been wrongly ordered to be restored by the authorities and the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. However, the said watercourse was never a running watercourse and never came in existence. The petitioner has not demolished the same.

(2.) Upon notice, respondents No. 1 to 6 filed reply with the averments that watercourse was left at the time of consolidation and watercourse 'DE' was in existence in rect. No. 12//13 and 14, as a result of which, irrigation of private respondent was being done. Similarly, it is pleaded that impugned orders are legal and valid. Watercourse 'BCDE' as shown in site plan Annexure P-3 was left at the time of consolidation of holdings out of which portion 'DE' in rect. No. 12, khasra No. 13 was dismantled and same has rightly been ordered to be restored.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.