PAWAN Vs. PARTAP AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the orders dtd. 14/8/2018 and 23/10/2018, Annexures P-2 and P-4 respectively, passed by the Sub-Divisional Canal Oficer, Sorakhi, Water Services Division, Sorakhi and Divisional Canal Officer, Bhiwani Water Services Division, Bhiwani, respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively, on the plea that the application, which has been submitted by respondent No. 1, was for restoration of a temporary khal. He contends that once it is an admitted fact that the khal was temporary one, the same could not have been allowed to be restored. He, therefore, contends that the impugned orders cannot sustain. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by this Court in Jagar Singh vs. Superintending Canal Officer and others, 1972 PLR 315, Balbir Singh vs. Divisional Canal Officer, 1983 PLJ 244 and Amar Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, 1986 PLJ 507. He, thus, contends that the impugned orders cannot sustain.

(2.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, have gone through the impugned orders.

(3.) A perusal of the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Bhiwani Water Services Division, Bhiwani dtd. 23/10/2018, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed, would show that the warabandi was sanctioned on 2/9/1987 by the Deputy Collector, Bhiwani Water Service Division, Bhiwani and since then, the water course ABC, which was sought to be restored, was running at the site. It is apparent that the said water course has been running for more than 30 years and, therefore, with efflux of time and as per the definition of the water course, the same would acquire the status of a permanent water course. The orders, therefore, as passed by the authorities below dtd. 14/8/2018 and 23/10/2018, Annexures P-2 and P-4 respectively, which have been impugned herein, cannot be said to be in accordance with law.