LABH SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mukhiar Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, share holder of Moga Burji 23678-R, Jandwala Minor, being owner of land bearing khasra Nos. 647, 648, 649 and 650, alleged that the water course had been closed by Lachhman Singh and others, therefore, he is not getting his fields irrigated. It was further averred that the water course passing through the land bearing khasra Nos. 647 and 648 was got lined by him at his own expenses. He, therefore, approached the Deputy Collector, Faridkot Canal Division and requested that a Nakka be provided to him for better irrigation of his land.

(2.) The Deputy Collector, after affording ample opportunity of hearing to all the parties and visiting the site, came to the conclusion that there was nothing to show that the Nakka had been closed and that the running turn of water also did not require any change except the turn on account of ownership. Accordingly, the turn of Mukhtiar Singh having land in khasra Nos. 647, 648, 649 and 650, total area measuring 62 kanals 19 marlas was ordered to be kept at serial number 72. The land having khasra No. 651 to get the water turn at serial number 72/1 and khasra No. 652 would have the turn at serial number 72/2. A copy of the order dated 4.9.2003 has been annexed as Annexure P/3 with the writ petition.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order of the Deputy Collector, Faridkot, dated 4.9.2003, petitioners filed an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot Canal Division, Faridkot. He accepted the appeal vide order dated 20.2.2004 holding that water courses were running on the Wats of khasra numbers 646-647 and 641-648; Nakka had not been sanctioned. The other party challenged the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot, before the Superintending Canal Officer. The Superintending Canal Officer though vide his order dated 15.7.2004 came to the conclusion that the order of the Divisional Canal Officer was in the interest of better irrigation, however, remanded the matter to him on the ground that proper hearing was not given to the parties.