Satinder Pal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 16 December, 2009

C.W.P.No.19463 of 2009                             1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH


                                  C.W.P.No.19463 of 2009
                                  Date of decision:16th December, 2009


Satinder Pal Singh
                                                   ......Petitioner

                          Versus

State of Punjab and others
                                                   .....Respondents

Before: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

Present: Mr. B.S.Baath, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Permod Kohli,J.(Oral)

Notice of motion.

At the asking of the Court, Mr. P.C.Goyal, Additional

Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the

respondents.

Private respondents no. 4 to 6 filed an application under

Section 30 FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873,

complaining the demarcation of the water course relating to outlet

Burji no.25233/L, Rajbah Fatte Nangal, village Kot Faridi, Tehsil and

District Gurdaspur.

Divisional Canal Officer, U.B.D.C.,Gurdaspur Division,

District Gurdaspur, on receipt of the application, called the area Ziledar

and directed him to inspect the spot and submit a report. Ziledar

inspected the spot and reported that the water course has been cut

down at points mentioned in the report. He also reported that the

water course has been demolished by the opposite party.

After summoning the petitioner, hearing the parties and on

consideration of the report, the Divisional Canal Officer, vide order
C.W.P.No.19463 of 2009 2

dated 20.06.2008, ordered for restoration of the water course.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an

appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer by raising a plea that

the water course is not in existence for the last 30/35 years.

Superintending Canal Officer, after hearing the parties, upheld the

order of the Divisional Canal Officer, Gurdaspur, vide order dated

16.09.2008.

The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the

aforesaid orders. It is contended that the authorities below have not

appreciated the facts on record. It is further contended that no

watercourse was existing for the last 30 to 35 years and thus, the

findings are incorrect.

I have perused the impugned order, there are concurrent

findings recorded by the authorities below, regarding the existence and

demolition of the water course.

The findings of the authorities below cannot be interfered

unless perverse, it is settled law that this Court while exercising the

jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot sit as a court of appeal over the

findings recorded by the authorities below. Both the courts below

have recorded their detailed findings.

In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition, the

petition is dismissed.

[PERMOD KOHLI]
JUDGE
16th December, 2009
Shivani Kaushik