- (1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.3.2010 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle-respondent No.1, whereby he has upheld the order dated 25.1.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Hari Ke Canal Division, Ferozepurrespondent No.2, ordering the restoration of a watercourse under Section 30 (FF) of the Northern India and Canal Drainage Act, 1873 (for short 'the Act').
(2.) Facts first. Respondent No.3 moved an application alleging that the petitioners have dismantled the watercourse, which was running at the site and sought restoration thereof at outlet No. 4700/R. The watercourse was ordered to be restored vide order dated 24.12.2008. However, the appeal of the petitioners was allowed by respondent No.1, vide order dated 25.8.2009 and the case was remanded back to the Divisional Canal Officer for fresh decision. Pursuant to the remand order, Divisional Canal Officer-respondent No.2 again ordered restoration of the watercourse, vide his impugned order dated 25.1.2010 (Annexure P-2).
(3.) Dissatisfied with the order passed by respondent No.2, petitioners filed appeal before respondent No.1, which was also dismissed, vide order dated 26.3.2010 (Annexure P-3). Thus, feeling aggrieved against the above said orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant writ petition, invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned orders. While issuing notice of motion on 19.5.2010, this Court passed the following order. "Notice of motion for 15.7.2010. At the asking of this Court, Mr. Kamaljit Singh Sidhu, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3. Operation of the impugned orders dated 25.1.2010 and 26.3.2010 (Annexure P-2 and P-3) shall remain stayed till further orders. In compliance of the above said order, joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 whereas a separate reply was filed on behalf of respondent No.3. Thereafter, on 8.1.2013 following order was passed by this Court:- "The short issue involved in the present petition is whether the water course, which has been ordered to be restored, was ever sanctioned by the competent authority and thus, was in existence. Learned counsel for the State seeks time to file an appropriate affidavit in this regard. On his request, adjourned to 13.2.2013. Divisional Canal Officer, Hari Ke Canal Division, Ferozepur-respondent No.2 is directed to file his own affidavit pointing out as to whether the water course in question was ever sanctioned by the competent authority. The relevant order sanctioning the water course, if any, be also placed on record.";