BUDH SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed against the order dated 22.05.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition (CWP No. 11212 of 2013) filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 10.04.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer; and the order dated 08.04.2013 (Annexure P- 13) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer. The appellant has also challenged the order dated 06.08.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the review application (R.A. No. 284 of 2013) filed by him was also dismissed.

(2.) Though there is delay of 82 days in filing the appeal and the appellant has filed application (CM No. 4190-LPA of 2013) for condoning the said delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits and have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as the orders passed by the canal authorities.

(3.) The dispute in the present case is regarding restoration of a demolished water course. Under Section 24 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the canal authorities have been empowered to restore a demolished water course on an application filed by the aggrieved person. In the instant case, the private respondents moved an application before the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, alleging that the appellant has illegally demolished the existing water course, through which they were irrigating their fields and prayed that the demolished water course be ordered to be restored. Initially, vide order dated 14.07.2008 (Annexure P-4), the said application was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, on the ground that the demolished water course does not fall under the definition of temporary water course, therefore, the same cannot be ordered to be restored. On appeal filed by the private respondents, the Divisional Canal Officer vide order dated 29.09.2008 (Annexure P-5) set aside the said order and ordered for restoration of the demolished water course, after coming to the conclusion that in the published scheme, the proposed new outlet RD 101469-L Pabra Distributory was shown to be completed head to tail from linked water courses and was shown to be in running condition and it was held that without linking water courses splitting was not possible. Therefore, the demolished water course was essential for irrigation and the same has to be restored. A contention of the appellant that no water course was existing before demolition was negated and it was held that the appellant has miserably failed to prove the said fact.