RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 01.09.2016 (Annexure P-7) [incorrectly typed as Annexure P-9 in the prayer clause) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, whereby the order dated 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-4) [wrongly typed as Annexure P-6 in the prayer clause) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer was upheld, directing restoration of watercourse up to the fields of respondent No.5, petitioners have approached this Court by way of present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned orders.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

(3.) After perusal of the record, including the impugned orders as well as site plan (Annexure P-9) with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has found that no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioners by passing of the impugned orders. It is so said because as per site plan (Annexure P-9), watercourse in question starts from point 'A'. It goes from point 'A' to point 'B', from point 'B' to 'D' and then from point 'D' to 'D1'. Watercourse at point 'D1' touches the central point of Killa Nos.1236-1235 on one side and Killa Nos. 1237 and 1238 on other side, all these four killas being the ownership of the petitioners. From point 'D1' the watercourse, as per the impugned orders and also confirmed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, would go downwards up to Killa No.1205 on one side and Killa No.1245 on the other side. Four acres land bearing Killa Nos.1192 and 1195 on one side and Killa Nos. 1246 and 1259 on the other side are owned by respondent No.5 namely Mahinder Singh son of Issar Singh.