Sukhdev Singh vs Superintending Canal Officer and Others

Ajai Lamba, J.—Respondent No. 3-Pritam Singh filed an application praying for restoration of water course that was running through the

land of the Petitioner. Petitioner resisted the request made u/s 30FF of the North India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. The Divisional Canal

Officer vide impugned order dated 2.9.2009 Annexure P-2 held that water course ''B.C.'' had been demolished by the Petitioner. Water Course

''A.B.C.D.'' is shown in running condition in map by the Lining Department. An application filed by Panchayat also shows that the water course

had been demolised. On account of the offending act of the Petitioner, land of Respondent No. 3 could not be irrigated.

The Petitioner carried an appeal that has been dismissed vide order dated 7.1.2010 Annexure P-3. In order Annexure P-3 it has been recorded

that the Petitioner gave statement that he will restore the demolished water course.

From the pleadings learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to show that the factum of giving a statement before the Appellate

Authority has been wrongly incorporated or that the Petitioner did not give any such statement.

Collectively considered, as a Writ Court, there is no reason to judicially review the orders passed by the Statutory Authorities. The orders do

not indicate lack of jurisdiction on the part of the authorities to pass impugned orders. Relevant material has been taken into account while

adjudicating. No illegality in the findings can be traced.

Petition dismissed.