K.KANNAN - (1.) THE petitioners challenge an issue of notice from the SDO to the petitioners seeking for demolition of the wall alleged to have been constructed as to obstruct the natural flow of water. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would contend that Section 55 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 empowers the Government to prohibit any obstruction or order its removal through a publication to be effected and Section 56 of the Act lays down that a Canal Officer after such publication as referred to under Section 55, will have the power to order the removal of obstruction or modifying the same within the time fixed in the order. I have seen the impugned order. THE order reads like this: "Notices were issued to you on vide letter under reference on the subject cited above that you have created hurdle in the natural flow of water by raising construction in Mahilpur Choe so, the same be demolished and natural flow of the water be restored with full capacity but you have failed to do so in this regard. You are hereby again directed by giving one final opportunity to remove the hurdle created by you in the aforesaid choe within 15 days and to restore the natural flow of water with full capacity failing which proceedings would be initiated against you under Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873."
(2.) THE order does not read like an order, which is passed under Section 56 but that the order order has been passed without reference to notification under Section 55 of the Act. If the petitioners' contention is that the wall that has been constructed is in his own land and that the obstruction, which is sought to be removed is on wrong premise that it is Government property or that it obstructs the water course, even if the wall were to be in the petitioner's property, it shall be open to the petitioners to establish their right through a properly instituted civil suit making the Government as party to establish his title through appropriate evidence and proof that there has been no obstruction to the flow of water and the wall that has been constructed is within his own land that does not still obstruct the flow. Since the matter bristles with assertion of title to an immovable property and the evidence that may have to be collected from the local area cannot be issues for a contention in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, I decline any interference at this stage in the manner sought to be done. The writ petition is dismissed but reserving to the petitioners the liberty as aforesaid.;