SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting-aside the orders dated 20.11.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Devigarh Division, Patiala and 3.6.2014 (Annexure P-4) of the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Main Line Circle, Patiala, whereby the application of respondent No.4 has been allowed and the watercourse from point B to C along khasra No.454 on the side of the passage was ordered to be restored under Section of 30-FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (for short "1873 Act").

(2.) Mr. D.S. Gurna, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.4 by deploying JCB machine dug an area of 6 feet deep and 7 feet wide along khasra No.454 owned and possessed by the petitioner in connivance with the officials of the Canal Department. The area was dug out on the side of the passage, thereby blocking the entry of the petitioner to his own fields despite the fact that the watercourse is running along side the same very khasra No.454 and passes along petitioner's other khasra Nos.455, 456, 457 and 458. Resultantly, respondent No.4 gave an application to the Canal Authorities for making out the case for restoration of the watercourse. He further submitted that the officials from the Canal Department supported the plea of respondent No.4 and submitted recommendation to the Divisional Canal Officer. The petitioner appeared before the authority along with co-sharer Bant Singh and raised objection that no watercourse, as alleged by the petitioner, was running along khasra No.454, but the watercourse, as stated above, was going along side of khasra No.454 abutting khasra Nos.474 and 471 owned by Amrik Singh, yet the Divisional Canal Officer passed the order dated 30.1.2013 in favour of respondent No.4.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved of the aforementioned order, the appeal was filed and the same was accepted vide order dated 16.7.2013 (Annexure P-2) and the matter was remitted back to the Divisional Canal Officer. The matter was again taken up by the Divisional Canal Officer, but the petitioner was not duly served. Respondent No.4 failed to prove the demolition of the watercourse, much less any evidence of existence of watercourse, much less even temporary watercourse as per 1873 Act. However, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2013 by holding that the watercourse was in existence from point B to C along the passage and ordered its restoration. Appeal filed against the said order, vide order dated 3.6.2014 (Annexure P-4), was dismissed by respondent No.2- Superintending Canal Officer.