Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, J. - (1.) The above mentioned both writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 17968 and 20051 of 2014 arise from the same impugned order, therefore, are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) Both the writ petitions have been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.02.2014 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.1-Superintending Canal Officer and the order dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2-Divisional Canal Officer whereby respondent Nos.1 and 2 have ordered restoration of water course which is alleged to be in contravention of the order dated 07.09.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by this Court.
(3.) The facts are being extracted from CWP No. 17968 of 2014. In brief, the facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition are to the effect that respondent No. 4-Major Singh (petitioner in CWP No.20051-2014) and his brother Balkaran Singh moved application dated 11.08.1995 (Annexure P-1) under Section 30-FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (for brevity, 'the Act') before respondent No.2-Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Division, Abohar for restoring the demolished .portion of watercourse, alleged to be demolished by Jaskaran Singh and Iqbal Singh sons of Naib Singh, to its original position leading from Outlet No.191484/L Lambi Rajbaha, village Rajpura. It is averred in the application that they are joint owners of the land. Out of the said land, respondent No.3 purchased some area about 10 years back. The applicants have been irrigating their fields through watercourse for the last more than 40 years. On the intervening night of 09/10.08.1995, Jaskaran Singh and Iqbal Singh sons of Naib Singh son of Santa Singh demolished the watercourse running in rect. No.76//10 and 11 through which the applicants were irrigating their fields consisting of rect. No.76//12, 13, 18, 19 and 23 and their naka taking and giving were also sanctioned at rect. Nos.57/75 stone line. Respondent No.2 marked an inquiry to the Sub Divisional Officer, who sought report of the Ziledar. The Ziledar concerned inspected the spot and recorded statements of concerned parties. He came to the conclusion that watercourse was running in rect. No.76//1, 10 and 11/1 and a portion in rect. No.76//10 and 11/1 has been demolished by Naib Singh. The Ziledar, vide its report dated 29.08.1995, also found that demolished part of watercourse is in the land of Naib Singh, small plants of 'gawara crop' were standing in a strip whereas in the remaining land, 'cotton crop' was standing which clearly establishes the demolished portion of watercourse. The said report was forwarded by the S.D.O. vide letter dated 04.09.1995 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, vide order dated 21.06.1996, the Divisional Canal Officer allowed the application under Section 30-FF of the Act and instead of restoration of the watercourse in rect. No.76//10 and 11, restored it in rect. No.75//5, 6 and 15 in the land of petitioner herein. Aggrieved against that, petitioner-Malkiat Singh approached respondent No.1-Superintending Canal Officer, who set aside the order of respondent No.2-Divisional Canal officer and remanded the case vide order dated 18.11.1996. However, respondent No.2-Divisional Canal Officer again ordered restoration of watercourse in rect. No.75//5, 6 and 15 vide order dated 29.12.1997. (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, petitioner-Malkiat Singh preferred an appeal before respondent No.1-Superintending Canal Officer, who dismissed the same vide order dated 08.04.1999 (Annexure P-4) and upheld the order of respondent No.2-Divisional Canal Officer. Feeling aggrieved, Malkiat Singh and others filed CWP No.6839 of 1999 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.09.2012 (Annexure P-5) whereby orders dated 29.12.1997 (Annexure P-3) and 08.04.1999 (Annexure P-4) were set aside and matter was remanded to Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar for fresh decision. In pursuance of the order dated 07.09.2012 passed by this Court, respondent No.2-Divisional Canal Officer proceeded with the matter and after hearing the parties restored the watercourse in rect. No.75//5, 6 and 15 vide impugned order dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure P- 6). Against that, Malkiat Singh and Major Singh preferred appeal before respondent No.1-Superintending Canal Officer which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.02.2014 (Annexure P-7). Hence, this writ petition.;