Ajai Lamba, J. - (1.) THE private Respondents filed an application under Section 30 -FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (for short 'the Act'), praying for restoration of water course, allegedly demolished by Petitioner -Surjit Singh. The application has been allowed vide order dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure P -3), passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Rupnagar Head Works Division. The Petitioner carried an appeal, which has been dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2008 (Annexure P -4), passed by Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana. Orders, Annexures P -3 and P -4, are under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the impugned orders do not disclose that the water course, in fact, was in existence which, allegedly, had been demolished by the Petitioner and, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. Learned Counsel for the Respondent -State, on the basis of the record, contends that there is a site plan, which shows that indeed a water course was in existence which, subsequently, was demolished by the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Respondent -State has further pointed out that the impugned orders are based on the report of the Ziledar, which clearly indicates that a water course, in fact, was in existence, and had been demolished by the Petitioner. This is also borne out from the statement given by the shareholders.
(3.) I have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties.;