AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A watercourse which irrigated the land of Mukhtiar Singh, respondent No. 4, passed through the land of petitioner Amar Singh. The petitioner demolished the same. On receiving an application for restoration of the watercourse from respondent No. 4, the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer Bhalaut, respondent No. 3, made an enquiry and passed an order under Section 24(2) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') (Annexure P-1) directing the petitioner to restore the watercourse to its original position. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Rohtak Division, respondent No. 2, by an order dated July 19, 1978 (Annexure P-3). In this writ petition these two orders i.e. Annexures P-1 and P-3 are sought to be quashed being without jurisdiction.

(2.) This petition has been resisted only by Mukhtiar Singh, respondent No. 4. He has stated in the written statement that both the impugned orders are perfectly valid.

(3.) In paragraph 2 of the petition it has been clearly averred that the disputed watercourse is not a sanctioned one and it had been constructed in the petitioner's land without his permission. This assertion has not been denied by respondent No. 4 in the written statement. Respondent No. 3 has neither alleged that the watercourse, dismantled by the petitioner, was a sanctioned one, nor that the petitioner had allowed the construction of the same in his land. In the impugned orders also it is not explained as to how the disputed watercourse came into existence. All that was said is that the watercourse meant for irrigating the land of respondent No. 4, and passing through the petitioner's land, was found dismantled.