JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA,J - (1.) THE petitioner challenges the orders dated May 20, 1998 and November 19, 1998 despite the fact that the writ petition against these orders was dismissed by this Court vide order dated November 3, 1999. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 made a petition for the sanction of a water-course to his land from outlet No. 43760-TR. Respondents No. 5 to 7 were allegedly impleaded as parties in the petition. Vide order dated May 20, 1998. a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-2 with this petition, the application of the fourth respondent was allowed by the Divisional Canal Officer. Aggrieved by this order, respondents No. 5 to 7, who are the brothers of the present petitioner, filed an appeal. It was considered by the Superintending Canal Officer. Vide order dated November 19, 1998, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition, the authority dismissed the appeal. Respondents No. 5 to 7 filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3393 of 1999 in this Court. This petition was dismissed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated November 3, 1999. Having lost upto the High Court, the present petitioner filed an application before the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot, praying that the water-course may not be carved through his holding. In this petition it was alleged that there was an oral family settlement and that he was in possession of land bearing Khasra Nos. 43/13, 14/1 and 18/2. It is stated that this petition is still pending. However, on January 10, 2001 the Divisional Canal Officer determined the amount of compensation which was admissible on account of the land used for the water-course. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the orders dated May 20, 1998, November 19, 1998 and January 10, 2001, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-9 be quashed.
(3.) IN the petition, it has been alleged that a regular family settlement had been arrived at and recorded on May 18, 1994. Thus, the petitioner was in exclusive possession of the land indicated in the plan, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition. Since the water-course is passing through his fields, the authorities were bound to give him an opportunity of hearing. They having failed to grant him on opportunity, the impugned orders are vitiated.;