Gurdit Singh vs Superintending Canal Officer, U.B.D.C.Circle, Amritsar

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

The petitioners who are residents of village Withman Chak Wassan, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, have filed this petition for quashing orders dated 17.2.1988 copies of which are Annexures P1 and P4 to the writ petition. Annexure P1 is the order of Divisional Canal Officer ''Madhopur Division'' District Gurdaspur passed under Section 30FF(2) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 while Annexure P4 is the order of Superintending Canal Officer, Upper Bari Doab Canal Circle, Amritsar who had dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and returned a finding that the watercourse was in existence and was demolished by petitioner Gurdip Singh and had affirmed the order of Divisional Canal Officer.

The challenge to the impugned order is primarily on the ground that respondent No. 1 had affirmed the order of respondent No. 2 without examining the matter and correctness of the allegations was not gone into. The other plea is that there was no authorised watercourse. As such the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

The State has filed a detailed written statement and has controverted the stand of the petitioners. In para 4 of the written statement it is stated that respondent No. 2 Divisional Canal Officer, Madhopur U.B.D.C Gurdaspur finally decided the case on 17.2.1988 after giving full opportunity to the parties to prove their case. Notice of the hearing was given by the Divisional Canal Officer and both the parties attended the Court on 17.2.1988. In para 6 it is stated that petitioner No. I has allowed the concession of watercourse to respondent No. 3 Smt. Kulwant Kaur. It is stated that the petitioner himself admitted the existence of the old watercourse and its subsequent demolition by him.

I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the paper book.

There is no irregularity in the impugned orders. The watercourse had been in existence at the site prior to its demolition and was thus rightly restored by the authorities. Respondent No. 2 had in fact afforded ample opportunity to the parties to plead their case and thereafter on proper enquiry by Ziledar, the Divisional Canal Officer had decided the case strictly as per provisions of Section 30FF of the Act.

Even otherwise, this matter is squarely covered by Full Bench decision of this Court in Karam Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer Sirhand Canal Circle, Ludhiana 1988(2) PLR 254 : 1988(2) RRR 378 wherein it was held that calling for a report is a part of the enquiry; however, it does not flow from the statute that the Divisional Canal Officer himself could not call for a report from his subordinates, he has to satisfy himself, on the basis of some material, that there existed a watercourse which has been demolished ... ... After going through the Judgment I am convinced that no enquiry by the Divisional Canal Officer himself was required to be conducted and there was no illegality in getting the same conducted through the Ziledar.

Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such. No costs.