RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK,J. - (1.) Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.5.2015 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners upholding the order dated 22.3.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3-Hukam Chand purchased land from Sham Singh etc. Land purchased by respondent No.3 has been shown in yellow colour in the site plan Annexure P-1. Land owned by the petitioners has been shown in green colour. Remaining land of the vendor of respondent No.3 has been shown in purple colour. Watercourse AB was a watercourse for the land of the petitioners whereas another watercourse WXYZ was a watercourse for the land Sham Singh etc. As noticed above, Sham Singh etc. were earlier owners of the land now purchased by respondent No.3- Hukam Chand, who is the only contesting respondent, as agreed by learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court.
(3.) After purchase of land from Sham Singh etc., respondent No.3 instead of insisting getting water from watercourse XYZ, allegedly started getting water from watercourse ABCD. Specifically pleaded case of the petitioners right from day one has been that watercourse BCD was their own private kuccha watercourse which they have dug just to irrigate their fields. It is the further case of the petitioners that although they have demolished their private watercourse CD, yet they have committed no error of law because respondent No.3 had no indefeasible right to claim irrigation through the private watercourse of the petitioners. However, ignoring the above said material fact, respondents No.1 and 2 passed the impugned orders directing the restoration of watercourse ABCD.;