SARWAN SINGH Vs. RATTAN SINGH CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sarwan Singh petitioner owns canal irrigated land in village Malukpur, Tehsil Fazilka, district Ferozepur. According to him, his brother Mukand Singh owns land adjacent to his. Mukand Singh has mortgaged his land with Gurdev Kaur wife of Jarnail Singh. The land of Mukand Singh is thus in possession of Jarnail Singh. A water-course passed through the land of Mukand Singh in occupation of Jarnail Singh for irrigating the land of the petitioner. Jarnail Singh demolished that water-course. A water-course also passed through the land of the petitioner to irrigate some land in possession of Jarnail Singh. The petitioner demolished that water-course as well. On a complaint made by Sarwan Singh petitioner about the demolition of the water-course, the Divisional Canal Officer, vide order dated September 4, 1974, held that as both the demolished water-courses were not sanctioned water-courses nor the parties had agreed to their restoration, although they were running for the last 15-20 years, they could not be restored under Section 30-FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The case of the petitioner further is that he approached the Canal authorities for a sanctioned water-course and as a result thereof, a scheme under Section 30-A of the Act was duly published and objections invited and approved vide order of the Divisional Canal Officer dated December 3, 1975. Jarnail Singh and Hakam Singh respondents filed appeals against this order before the Superintending Canal Officer who set aside the order of the Divisional Canal Officer and remanded the case for fresh decision. The Divisional Canal Officer, vide order dated May 11, 1977, repeated his previous order according to which the water-course for irrigating the land of the petitioner was to pass on the boundary of the land in occupation of Jarnail Singh respondent. Hakam Singh and Jarnail Singh respondents again filed appeals against the order of the Divisional Canal Officer dated May 11, 1977, and the same were accepted by the Superintending Canal Officer vide orders dated July 21, 1977, and the order of the Divisional Canal Officer was set aside. The petitioner has challenged the orders of the Superintending Canal Officer in the present writ.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the impugned orders passed by the Superintending Canal Officer are based on wrong premises. He has not applied his mind and has not recorded speaking orders. The impugned orders of the Superintending Canal Officer, copies annexures P.2 and P.3, be quashed. The order annexure P.2 has been passed in the appeal filed by Jarnail Singh and annexure P.3 in the appeal filed by Hakam Singh.