The Superintending Canal Officer's order modifying restoration of a water course was deemed arbitrary and illegal, reaffirming the petitioner's rights under Section 24(1) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 30.03.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner, illegally and without appreciating the facts on record and upheld the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by respondent No.3. Further prayer has been made for staying the impugned order dated 30.03.2018 (Annexure P-5).

2. The present case has emanated from the order passed by the learned Superintending Canal Officer dated 30.03.2018 (Annexure P-5) whereby he has set aside the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Canal Officer dated 27.01.2017 and the learned Divisional Canal Officer dated 15.11.2017. The petitioner had filed the petition under Section 24(1) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') for restoring the water course in the area No.96/5-6-15 Middle Edge which was from South to North on Outlet RD-11535-TL Prabhuwala Minor, Village Prabhuwala. The petition filed by the petitioner was accepted by the learned Sub Divisional Canal Officer vide his order dated 27.01.2017. Aggrieved by the same, respondents No.5 and 6 filed an appeal under Section 24(4) of the Act before the learned Divisional Canal Officer. On hearing both the sides, the learned Divisional Canal Officer finding no merit in the same, rejected the appeal vide his order dated 15.11.2017, thus, affirming the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Canal Officer dated 27.01.2017. Again aggrieved by the same, respondent No.5 filed the revision petition before the learned Superintending Canal Officer, which was accepted by modifying the orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional Canal Officer and the Divisional Canal Officer vide impugned order dated 30.03.2018. Thus, being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that one Ram Narayan, son of Guraya Ram had given the water course before the Court of Deputy Collector, Hisar on 26.08.1998 by recording his consent with regard to the water course in the area No.96/5/1,6/2 to the petitioner. He has submitted that the Deputy Collector had admitted the statement of Ram Narayan vide his order dated 11.03.1999 and thus, the water course was dug up at the site and the naka of the petitioner was fixed at Sr. No.39 in Padat Warabandi dated 11.03.1999. Thereafter, Ram Narayan sold his land to Harkesh, son of Ram Saran i.e. respondent No.5 on 21.08.2000. However, the water course given to the petitioner continued at the site and the petitioner was irrigating his fields through this water course. He submits that respondent No.5 illegally erected the pillars along with barbed wire in the water course and thus, obstructed the water course from which the petitioner was irrigating his fields. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an application to the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Barwala i.e. respondent No.4 on 05.05.2016 for removal of the pillars along with barbed wire erected by respondent No.5 in the water course. He has submitted that the site was inspected by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer and he found the action of respondent No.5 in erecting the pillars along with barbed wire to be in violation of the statutory provisions of the Act. Thus, the learned Sub Divisional Canal Officer accepted the petition filed by the petitioner vide his order dated 27.01.2017 by directing respondent No.5 to remove the pillars from the site within a week. However, respondent No.5 filed an appeal against the same before the Divisional Canal Officer, who rejected the same vide his order dated 15.11.2017. He has submitted that respondent No.5 further assailed the same by way of filing the revision before the Superintending Canal Officer. He submits that the learned Superintending Canal Officer without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the statutory provisions, set aside both the well reasone