JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner prays that the orders dated March 26, 1997 and January 9, 1998 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer for restoration of the khal be quashed. Copies of these orders have been placed on record as Annexure P-2 and P-4 respectively.
(2.) A reply has been filed on behalf of the official respondents by Mr. Jagroop Singh, the Divisional Canal Officer. A separate reply has also been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent-Banta Singh. The claim of the petitioner has been controverted. Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that there was no existing water course. The respondent-Banta Singh had not even asked for the restoration of any water course. Yet, the two authorities have directed that the khal (water channel) shall be restored. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by M/s M.C. Berry and S.C. Chhabra, counsel for the respondents.
(3.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Divisional Canal Officer had come to a firm finding of fact that the water channel had been "demolished from the joint Watt and the demolished khal is running since long on the spot". Thus, the petitioner was directed to "restore this khal on the spot within 7 days". The petitioner was aggrieved by this order. He filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer. The Appellate Authority came to a firm finding that "the khal was earlier in existence on the joint Watt which Bachan Singh etc. have demolished. So in the interest of irrigation under Section 30FF the order of the Divisional Canal Officer Harike Canal Division, Ferozepur, is upheld ...". Thus, the appeal was dismissed. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the findings of fact recorded by the two authorities are not in conformity with the evidence which had been placed before them in the present proceedings.;