ASA NAND Vs. CHIEF CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order of an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court declining to allow CWP No. 3114 of 1985 preferred by the appellant. The facts giving rise thereto are these :

(2.) The second respondent preferred a revision petition, though styled as an appeal, before the Chief Canal Officer. He took a broader view of the mater. He saw things in the right perspective, because what was termed as a watercourse alongside the Narwana Branch was in fact not a watercourse but a site left for the purpose during consolidation. The watercourse shown in 'Dots' in plan Annexure P-4 was already running termporarily and the outlet thereof was at point 'N' from the Narwana Branch. So from this temporary watercourse, an offs hoot (sic) was ordered at point 'A' providing watercourse upto point 'A-1', wherefrom the land of the second respondent started. However, in order to meet the objection of the appellant, it was ordered that instead of the watercourse 'A' to '1-A' running on surface, it be run underground by burying a 25 feet long pipe. So the temporary watercourse got a temporary off shoot provided thereform in the interest of irrigation till the matter got finally settled by proper drawer of a scheme for the outlet at RD 375-R, Jansui distributary. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant filed CWP No. 3114 of 1985 in this Court, which on dismissal has given rise to this Letter Patent Appeal.

(3.) Two points have been raised by Mr. A.S. Nehra, learned counsel for the appellant. The first point is that the laying of an underground pipe to permit outflow of water from point 'A' to point 'A-1, is not providing a watercourse, and if that is so neither can section 17 nor section 18 of the Act, be invoked. On that basis, it is urged that the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction. Somewhat similar was the contention rasped by the appellant before the learned Single Judge unsuccessfully. But keeping that apart, there is a basic fallacy in the argument. Sub-section (1) of Section 17, being the only part relevant for our purpose, is booted below :-