DARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 12.05.2014 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2 whereby revision petition filed by respondent No.5 has been accepted and the previous orders dated 05.06.2013 (Annexure P-4) and 19.08.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer (hereinafter called as "SDCO") and Divisional Canal Officer (hereinafter called as "DCO") respectively have been set aside.

(2.) Mr. Shalender Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a shareholder of outlet No.RD 132890-R Kheri Distributory and irrigating his field for the last 15 years from water course running in the middle line of murba No.126 and 139 in killa No.126//21x25 and 139//1x5. The private respondent dismantled the running water course marked as AB. Aggrieved against the action of the private respondent, the petitioner lodged an FIR No.44 dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure P-2) and also approached the respondent No.4 i.e. SDCO and the parties were called, much less, report from the Ziledar Bhattu was called for. As per his report dated 13.05.2013, it was found that the water course has been dismantled by the private respondent. The respondent No.4 vide order dated 05.06.2013 allowed the application of the petitioner and ordered for restoration of the water course.

(3.) The private respondent No.5 assailed the aforementioned order before respondent No.3 i.e. the Divisional Canal Officer and the order was upheld vide order dated 19.08.2013. The order of DCO was again challenged before respondent No.2-Superintending Canal Officer, who vide impugned order dated 04.10.2013 set aside the order by holding that the revision petition was not maintainable but thereafter vide order dated 28.02.2014 passed in CWP No.23455 of 2013, the matter was remanded back to be decided afresh. However, respondent No.2 vide order dated 12.05.2014 (Annexure P-8) set aside the orders of SDCO and DCO, in essence, dismissed the application of the petitioner for restoration of the water course, thus, urges this Court for quashing the order dated 12.05.2014 as the same is illegal and arbitrary and not sustainable on following counts:-