DHARAMBIR AND OTHERS Vs. DIVISIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.06.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.1-Divisional Canal Officer whereby appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 25.11.2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Canal Officer has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the facts as averred in writ petition are to the effect that land of the petitioners and private respondents was being irrigated through outlet RD No.43970-R Balsamand Sub Branch of village Niyana, Tehsil and District Hisar. The said outlet had been running on the spot for the last 30 years but the same was allegedly dismantled. The private respondents moved application under Sec. 24 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 before respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Canal Officer for restoration of alleged dismantled lined watercourse 'AB' at killa No.65//16, eastern line south to north, as shown in site plan Annexure P-5. The case was got investigated through Ziledar, Dewa who after investigation and site inspection recommended the case for restoration of alleged dismantled lined watercourse 'AB'. Vide order dated 25.11.2014 (Annexure P-2), respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Canal Officer ordered restoration of dismantled lined watercourse 'AB' at rect. No.65//16, eastern line south to north and costs of Rs.8,50,000.00 have been ordered to be recovered from the present petitioners for dismantling the lined watercourse. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners preferred appeal before respondent No.1-Divisional Canal Officer who dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 12.06.2016 (Annexure P- 3). Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Upon notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement with the averments that the watercourse in question had been sanctioned and lined by the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Corporation at the costs of the Govt. and it was found that the alleged watercourse had been running for the last 35-40 years. During the site inspection on 24.11.2014, it was found to be dismantled and bricks with which it was made lined, had been taken away. The culvert was also found to be existing at points A and B. The watercourse was found to be passing under the path and watercourse was also found to be in existence after point 'B' which led to the fields of private respondents. The bricklining of alleged demolished watercourse is sufficient to prove that it had been sanctioned and brick-lined by the department after following due process. Other averments made in writ petition have been denied.