Jasbir Singh, J. - (1.) The petitioners by filing the present writ petition have challenged the order dated May 16, 2001 (Annexure P -4) passed by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Bani Water Services Division, Sirsa, respondent No. 1, and order dated June 5, 2001 (Annexure P -5) passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Sirsa Water Services Division, Sirsa. It has been contended in the writ petition that as per the site plan Annexure P -l, the petitioners are owners and in possession of area shown in yellow colour and the private respondents are owners and in possession of area shown in orange colour. There is another area shown in green colour in the said site plant. Previously this area was owned by Begraj etc. and the same was purchased by the petitioners vide a sale deed dated May 10, 2001. It has been further contended that when the land shown in green colour in the site plan was in possession of Begraj etc., they were getting water from the watercourse shown as DA in the site plan Annexure P -l and the area shown in 'orange' colour (small portion of the respondents) was getting irrigation through the watercourse shown as CX&Y. The watercourse DA was dismantled by the private respondents. Then Begraj moved an application before the Canal Authorities to restore the same. As a counter -blast respondent Balraj Singh also moved an application that the portion of the watercourse shown as 'AB' has been dismantled by Begraj and the same may also be restored. Both these applications were heard together at that time and then Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Bani, ordered the restoration of the watercourse shown as DA on permanent basis and AB on temporary basis for a period of six months on the Eastern side of Rectangle No. 102/5,6,15 and 16 through the land of said Begraj upto April, 1999, vide order Annexure P -2. (In the present dispute the earlier watercourse which was shown as XY& Z is now being referred as DA&B). Order Annexure P -2 was challenged by respondent No. 3 Balraj Singh and after hearing the parties, i.e. sons of Begraj etc., it was ordered that both the watercourse XY and YZ (now DA and AB) be restored upto April, 1999. Private respondents never challenged the said order and qua them it has become final. It has further been stated that Begraj etc. filed CWP No. 4302 of 1999 for quashing the order Annexure P -3 but ultimately the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on April 30, 2001 and having become infructuous because both the watercourses had been restored only upto April, 1999. As already stated the land of Begraj etc. was purchased by the present petitioners on May 10, 2001. It has further been contended in the writ petition that orders Annexure P -2 and P -3 were never implemented at the spot but in a very mala fide manner the respondents moved one application before respondent No. 1 stating therein that the watercourse which was restored in the year 1999 has been dismantled again by the petitioners and the same be got restored. The said application was opposed by the petitioners but they failed before respondent No. 1 who vide order dated May 16, 2001 (Annexure P -4) directed the restoration of the watercourse DA&B. Appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide order dated June 5, 2001 (Annexure P -5). Hence this writ petition.
(2.) Upon notice of motion, the respondents appeared. Respondents No. 3 and 4 filed a written statement controverting all the allegations made by the petitioners, the official respondents have not filed any written -statement in the present case.
(3.) We have heard counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.;