- (1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 22.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent no.2-Divisional Canal Officer, Sidhwan Canal Division, Ludhiana and order dated 10.02.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent no.1-Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana.
(2.) In brief, the facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition are to the effect that respondent no.3-Bharat Singh moved application to respondent no.2 to the effect that he is a shareholder in Outlet No.R.D.13955/Tail Right/Safuwala Minor and his turn of water is permanently fixed on this outlet. He also pleaded that a watercourse coming to his area as well as of others has been demolished by petitioners due to which, canal irrigation of his land has been stopped. It is submitted that demolished canal watercourse be restored so that respondent no.3 and others could irrigate their lands. Respondent no.2, vide impugned order dated 22.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) ordered the restoration of watercourse under Section 30 FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners preferred an appeal before respondent no.1 which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.02.2011 (Annexure P-4). Hence, this writ petition. Upon notice, respondents put in appearance through their counsel. Respondents no.1 and 2 have filed reply contending that alleged watercourse was dismantled by petitioners, as stated by respondent no.2 in impugned order dated 22.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) and it has been rightly restored.
(3.) Respondents no.3 to 5 have also filed their separate written statement with the averments that petitioners have concealed the material facts from this Court. The watercourse was dismantled by the petitioners with a sole purpose of stopping the irrigation to lands of respondents no.3 to 5. The water is lifeline of the crop and its stoppage will ruin the crop of respondents no.3 to 5. If the watercourse is not restored, whole land of respondents no.3 to 5 would become barren. Replication to reply of respondents no.1 and 2 has been filed denying the averments made in reply and reiterating the same as of petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the original record brought by the Ziledar of the circle concerned.;