KARAM SINGH Vs. SUPDT CANAL OFFICER SIRHIND CANAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner, by mutual agreement with Mukhtiar Singh, dug a private watercourse passing through the land of the latter and compensated him by giving him 5 Karamas of land. The arrangement continued for quite some time. Respondent No. 3 got the Warabandi sanctioned, showing the private watercourse. The Warabandi was sanctioned on the basis of a watercourse which was allowed by mutual consent. The petitioner objected to the running of the watercourse through his land on the ground that he never approved the watercourse, and he dismantled it.

(2.) Respondent No. 3 filed an application before the Canal Authorities, alleging that the petitioner had dismantled the sanctioned watercourse which may be restored.

(3.) The Divisional Canal Officer got the spot inspected through Ziledar, Jaitu, who, in turn, submitted the report to the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhapai. On receipt of the report the Divisional Canal Officer issued notices to the parties for hearing, recorded the oral evidence produced, heard the arguments, and finally passed a speaking order dated March 12, 1986 (Annexure P2). It is this order which has been challenged through this writ petition.