MOHAN LAL Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application (Annexure P-1) in the prescribed format was submitted to the authorities for restoring the water course running in killa No.125/11/2 allegedly destroyed by Dharampal-respondent No.4 on 03.07.2015. The Sub Divisional Canal Officer appointed the Tehsildar for spot inspection and as per Annexure P-4, he after inspecting the spot recorded the statement of Sarpanch and found claim of the petitioner to be justified. Resultantly, the SDCO vide order dated 5.10.2015/7.10.2015 ordered for restoration of the water course from point ABC temporarily for one year under Section 24(3) of the Haryana Canal and Water Drainage Act, 1974.

(2.) However, the aforementioned order was assailed by the private respondents before the Divisional Canal Officer, who vide impugned order dated 29.08.2016 (Annexure P-6) while relying upon the inspection report dated 27.05.2016 held that there was no sign found on the spot for dismentalling of water course at the place of disputed water course.

(3.) Mr. Thind, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that inspection done on 27.05.2016 was immaterial as the contention of the petitioner in the application was of demolition of the same in the month of July, 2015, therefore, subsequent inspection pales into insignificance. The aforementioned order was challenged before the Superintending Canal Officer, who vide impugned order dated 25.10.2016 dismissed the revision petition being not maintainable. He has drawn attention of this Court to the aforementioned order which reads as under:-