LALIT Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present writ petition is for setting-aside the order dated 26.6.2014 received on 11.7.2014 (Annexure P-12), whereby the Superintending Canal Officer, Hisar dismissed the revision petition, order dated 27.9.2013 (Annexure P-7), whereby the Divisional Canal Officer, Hansi dismissed the appeal, much less the order dated 10.7.2013 (Annexure P-5), whereby the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Petwar, Water Supply/Services Division, Hansi ordered for restoration of the watercourse, being illegal and erroneous.

(2.) Mr. Ramesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land of the petitioner comprised in killa No.23 had already been encroached on one side, i.e., by way of khal/watercourse AB and had been made pucca, thus, from the same killa, on the other side, the alleged khal/watercourse AC under the garb of restoration without any compensation is not sustainable in the eyes of law. No permanent watercourse AC was ever constructed, much less no documentary evidence has been placed on record before the authorities below. No draft Scheme under Sec. 17 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (for short "the Act) showing AC as the watercourse has been prepared nor the same was ever published. Under the garb of application under Sec. 24 of the Act, watercourse AC could not have been created and even in a case of temporary watercourse, no restoration can be ordered for more than one year. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments to contend that there has to be compliance of the conditions under Sec. 2(15) of the Act:-

(3.) He further submitted that the watercourse either has to be sanctioned through agreement or by prescription. None of the aforementioned conditions has been fulfilled and, thus, the orders under challenge are liable to be set-aside. The impugned orders have been passed without keeping in mind the earlier orders and maps. During the course of the hearing, he has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P-4 site plan to contend that in the year 2002, the watercourse AB had already been carved out and, therefore, the watercourse AC could not have been granted. There was no demolition.