OM PARKASH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 25.04.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services Circle, Fatehabad, wherein the revision petition preferred by the petitioners was dismissed as well as the order dated 05.07.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Water Services Division, Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad-respondent No.2 and the order dated 16.05.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Bhattu Water Services Sub Division, Bhattu, allowing the application of private respondents under Section 24 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, whereby directions have been issued to the respondents to restore the watercourse which has been dismantled by them.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that as a matter of fact there was no watercourse at the site and the respondents have been irrigating their land through another watercourse, which aspect has not been taken into consideration by the authorities. His further contention is that the authorities below have proceeded to decide the application on the basis of the report dated 01.05.2018 of the Ziledar, Fatehabad, without taking into consideration the other evidence which was available. He contends that the findings as recorded by the authorities below cannot sustain as they are not based upon proper appreciation of the position at the site. Assertion has also been made by him that 10 feet of the land of the petitioners would be rendered useless as the watercourse is 10 feet inside the boarder line of the land of the petitioners. He, thus, contends that the order passed by the respondents cannot sustain.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance, have gone through the records available on the file as well as the impugned orders.