AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1 By way of present writ petition, the petitioner assails order dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 2 whereby order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Sorkhi Water Services Sub Division Sorkhi, District Hansi has been upheld. Petitioner further has laid challenge to order dated 31.05.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi (Annexure P-7) and that dated 26.11.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by Additional District Judge, Hisar.
2 Respondents filed application for restoration of watercourse claiming that the existing watercourse has been demolished by the petitioner.
3 The petitioner filed reply to the application filed by respondents. Report from Ziledar was called. Spot was inspected by the Canal authorities. Respondent No.3 vide order (Annexure P-1) allowed the application filed by respondents, holding that at the time of inspection, marks of demolition of the watercourse were found. The watercourse is running for last many years. The fact has been verified by Lambardar. It stands proved that watercourse of Mogha 16000/L, Sunder-Sorkhi-Link Minor is shown to be running from point A to B and C to D in the site plan. The Canal authorities accordingly ordered restoration thereof under Section 24(3) of Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (for short, ‘the 1974 Act’).
4 Petitioner filed appeal. Respondent No. 2 upheld the order passed by respondent No. 3, dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner observing as under :-
“Inspected that site and appeal Khaka plan and Revenue Record has been examined. Statement of the appellants as well as respondents have also been considered. From perusal of Record, it has been considered that according to Khaka plan and Revenue Record Submitted/produced before the court, No other water course touches the respondents area, which clearly shows that respondents was been irrigated from the water course A-B and C-D in question. Sub Divisional Canal Officer Sorkhi Water Services Sub Division Sorkhi has ordered to restore the water course A-B & C-D after site inspection. Appellants could not produced any solid proof in favour of this appeal. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this court is in the opinion that water courses in question is running at site and due to demolition of the water course A-B & C-D, irrigation of the respondents area is deprived off from the Canal water. As such Sub Divisional Canal Officer Sorkhi Water Services Sub Division Sorkhi has decided the case after site inspection. Hence appeal of the appellants does not seems as genuine hence appeal is hear by rejected under section 24(4) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act 29 of 1974 and up held the decision of Sub Divisional Canal Officer Sorkhi Water Services Sub Division Sorkhi.”
5 The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Canal authorities by filing a civil suit. Respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint. Taking cognizance of Section 25 of the 1974 Act, Civil Judge allowed the application filed by respondents and rejected the plaint holding the same to be barred by law.
6 Petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Annexure P-7). The appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 26.11.2024.
7 Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court as to how orders passed by the Civil Court, Annexures P-7 and P-8, can be challenged by way of present writ petition.
8 That apart, this Court is of the opinion that orders passed by Canal authorities are based upon spot inspection and proper appreciation of evidence on record. Petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court as to how the finding recorded by the Canal authorities with regard to existence of the watercourse can be said to be perverse.
9 In view of the aforesaid finding, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the present writ petition. The same is ordered to be dismissed.