J.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed an application before the Divisional Canal Officer alleging that the present petitioners had demolished an existing water channel. They prayed for its restoration. This application was considered by the Divisional Canal Officer. Vide his order dated March 17, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P -3 with the petition, the authority had rejected the claim of the aforesaid respondents. It was observed that on spot inspection the water channel was not found to be in existence. In fact, he found that "no signs" of the Khal existed at the spot. Thus, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order, the respondents filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer. Notice of the appeal was given to all concerned including the petitioners. Written arguments were filed by both sides. After consideration of the matter, the Superintending Canal Officer accepted the appeal vide his order dated November 3, 2000. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P -4 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. They allege that the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer is wholly illegal. Thus, they pray that the order be quashed.
(2.) Mr. C.M. Munjal, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the Khal did not exist. By the impugned order, the petitioners' land would be divided into two portions. Thus, they pray that the impugned order be set aside.
(3.) On examination of the evidence the appellate authority his found that "the defendant (the present petitioners) admits its existence in a statement". Thus, the contention that the Khal did not exist has been rejected. It has also been noticed that the respondents had "purchased the slips regarding payment of canal revenue which are on the file". The occasion for payment would have arisen only when the water channel existed and the land had been irrigated. Still further, reference was made to the reports submitted by the various members of the field staff. It is on detailed consideration of the evidence on record that a categorical finding regarding the existence of the water channel and its demolition has been recorded. Nothing has been pointed out to show that these findings are wrong. Thus, these call for no interference.;