JUDGMENT :

Harsh Bunger, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner (Manoj) has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Kaithal.

2. Briefly, respondent No.5-Krishan filed an application dated 23.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) seeking restoration of water course in the chak of outlet No.RD-14000-L Ghasso Feeder of Village Jheel. The matter was got investigated through concerned Ziledar, who after site inspection, prepared the khaka plan and submitted his report for bringing the demolished water course to its original condition. Thereafter, the notices were issued to all the concerned parties and objections/suggestions were sought.

2.1 The Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, vide its order dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure P-5) rejected the demand of respondent No.5 on the ground that another water course CD running at the site, touches the holding of respondent No.5 and his area can be irrigated through the said water course.

2.2 Being aggrieved against the afore-said order dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure P-5), respondent No.5 preferred an appeal under Section 24(4) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (for short 'the 1974 Act'), which came to be dismissed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana, vide its order dated 20.05.2024 (Annexure P-6).

2.3 Still aggrieved, the respondent No.5 preferred a revision petition under Section 20(3) of the 1974 Act, before the Superintending Canal Officer, Kaithal, who vide its order dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) returned a finding that the water course 'A-B' falls within the ambit of Section 2(15) of the 1974 Act, under the definition of permanent water course and after setting aside the order dated 20.02.2024 and 20.05.2024 (Annexures P-5 and P-6, respectively) ordered restoration of water course 'A-B' at site.

3. In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court for the relief, as noticed here-in-above.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, was without jurisdiction as the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, under Section 24(4) of the 1974 Act, is the final order and the Superintending Canal Officer, has wrongly assumed jurisdiction while entertaining the revision petition under Section 20(3) of the 1974 Act. It is submitted that even otherwise, once the land of respondent No.5 can be irrigated through another water-course, therefore, there was no occasion for ordering restoration of water course 'A-B' at site, which according to the petitioner is his personal water course.

4.1 With the afore-said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside of impugned order.

5. Heard.

6. As regards the first contention that the Superintending Canal Officer, had no jurisdiction to entertain revision under Section 20(3) of the 1974 Act against an order passed under Section 24(4) of the 1974 Act is concerned, it is observed that the said issued is no more res-integra, inasmuch as that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-22297-2016, decided on 07.02.2020, wherein, it was held as under :-

"6. From the aforementioned statutory provisions it is evident that Section 24 pertains to restoration of demolished or altered etc. watercourses. In such proceedings, an appeal lies against the order of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer to the Divisional Canal Officer and the order passed in appeal is final. No further appeal or revision lies. Accordingly, if Section 24 of the Act is read in isolation, even the order dated 25.03.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer was without jurisdiction. However, all provisions of an Act have to be read harmoniously. Section 20 of the Act is a provision pertaining to appeals and revisions. Sub-section