- (1.) Instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.11.2002 (Annexure P-6) passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Tohana Water Services Division, Tohana, whereby the operation of watercourse in question, shown as AB in the site plan (Annexure P-1), was ordered to be restored. Notice of motion was issued and status quo was directed to be maintained between the parties, vide order dated 21.01.2003 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. Contesting respondent No.3 filed his written statement. Short reply was filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 16.10.2003 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) It is a matter of record that initially the order dated 02.08.2001 (Annexure P-3) was passed by Sub Divisional Canal Officer, dismissing the application of respondent No.3 seeking restoration of watercourse AB, alleging that this portion of watercourse was dismantled by the petitioner. That order dated 02.08.2001 was challenged by respondent No.3 before Divisional Canal Officer, who accepted his appeal vide order dated 28.08.2001 (Annexure P-4), ordering restoration of watercourse AB. Petitioner felt aggrieved and approached this Court by way of CWP No.15952 of 2001, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.04.2002 (Annexure P-5). Relevant operative part of the order dated 26.04.2002 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, at page 26 of the paper book, reads as under: - "Reading of the order, reproduced above, would show that Divisional Canal Officer did not apply his mind to the facts of the case at all. The officer did not even choose to go through the order passed by Sub Divisional Canal Officer and the reasons given by him. The impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking and has come into being without taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties. That being so, the order passed by Divisional Canal Officer, impugned in the present petition, needs to be set aside. So ordered. The matter is remitted to Divisional Canal Officer to decide the appeal afresh by passing a well reasoned and speaking order after noticing the contentions of the parties."
(3.) In compliance of the abovesaid order passed by this Court, Divisional Canal Officer, vide his impugned order dated 25.11.2002 (Annexure P-6) maintained his earlier order dated 28.08.2001 (Annexure P-4), again ordering restoration of watercourse AB. A bare perusal of the site plan (Annexure P-1) would make it crystal clear that the watercourse starts from Point C and goes upto Point D. This watercourse goes on the killa line of Killa Nos.25-21, 16-20, 15-11 and 6-10. Once this watercourse goes on the dividing line of these khasra numbers, there was no reason as to why this should not go straight on the killa line.;