Kartar Singh vs Superintending Canal Officer

I.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

The petitioner impugns the order of the Superintending Canal Officer dated May 26, 1973, Annexure ''B'' disallowing his prayer for the restoration of a watercourse alleged to have been dismantled by respondent No. 2 some time prior to the filing of the application by the petitioner under section 30FF of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (for short, the Act). For recording this conclusion, the Superintending Canal Officer has come to a conclusive finding that none of the three conditions which entitle the authorities under the Act to order restoration of the watercourse i.e. (i) watercourse was sanctioned under the relevant provision of Canal Act; (ii) watercourse had been dug at site subsequent to a mutual agreement between the parties; and (iii) watercourse had run for a continuous uninterrupted period of 20 years at least, has been established in this case. It has been ruled by a Division bench of this court in Jagar Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer and others, 1972 P.L.J. 147, that unless any of the abovenoted conditions is established, the authorities under the Act, have no jurisdiction to order the restoration of the watercourse.

Faced with this verdict of the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has nothing to urge in support of the petition.

In he light of the discussion above, this petition fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.