JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioner prays that the orders dated March 26, 1997 and January 9, 1998 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer for restoration of the khal be quashed. Copies of these orders have been placed on record as Annexure P-2 and P-4 respectively. 2. A reply has been filed on behalf of the official respondents by Mr. Jagroop Singh, the Divisional Canal Officer. A separate reply has also been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent-Banta Singh. The claim of the petitioner has been controverted. 3. Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that there was no existing water course. The respondent-Banta Singh had not even asked for the restoration of any water course. Yet, the two authorities have directed that the khal (water channel) shall be restored. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by M/s M.C. Berry and S.C. Chhabra, counsel for the respondents. 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Divisional Canal Officer had come to a firm finding of fact that the water channel had been "demolished from the joint Watt and the demolished khal is running since long on the spot". Thus, the petitioner was directed to "restore this khal on the spot within 7 days". The petitioner was aggrieved by this order. He filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer. The Appellate Authority came to a firm finding that "the khal was earlier in existence on the joint Watt which Bachan Singh etc. have demolished. So in the interest of irrigation under Section 30FF the order of the Divisional Canal Officer Harike Canal Division, Ferozepur, is upheld ......". Thus, the appeal was dismissed. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the findings of fact recorded by the two authorities are not in conformity with the evidence which had been placed before them in the present proceedings. 5. Mr. Punchhi contends that in a civil suit which had been instituted on February 10, 1997 the civil Court had found that there was no existing khal at the spot. Thus, the counsel submits that the authorities have erred in coming to the conclusion that there was a khal which had been running for a long time. 6. We have perused the copy of the judgment which has been produced on the record. Thus, the counsel submits that the authorities have erred in coming to the conclusion that there was a khal which had been running for a long time. 6. We have perused the copy of the judgment which has been produced on the record. A perusal of this judgment indicates that the petitioner had filed the civil suit for the issue of a permanent injunction "restraining the defendants from effecting the recovery of Rs. 254/- on account of Nehari Mamla or any other amount ......". The 3rd respondent was not a party. Still further, no issue had been framed by the Court regarding the existence of the water channel. The petitioner has not even suggested that a copy of the judgment was produced before the two authorities which decided the case. In this situation, we cannot infer that the authorities have erred in passing the impugned orders. 7. Mr. Punchhi contends that the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal without assigning any reason. The order being laconic, it should be quashed. We are unable to accept even this contention. The relevant facts have been noticed. The point in issue has been considered and the order of the Divisional Canal Officer has been affirmed. We cant say that the order does not assign any reason. In particular, it may be noticed that Mr. Punchhi has not referred to any evidence or plea which may have been referred to or raised but was not considered by the authority. Resultantly, we cannot say that the order should be quashed on the ground that is assigns no reason. 8. The matters regarding water channels etc. fall within the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act. The Writ Court is not equipped with the expertise or the material to interfere unless a palpable wrong is shown. In the present case, a perusal of the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer shows that according to the inspection conducted by the Ziledar the khal was in existence. It was demolished after the inspection. The co-sharers of the land had verified the existence of the khal for a the long period. In order to substantiate the plea of the non-existence of the khal, the petitioner had raised construction at the spot. From these facts an inference was drawn against the petitioner. It was demolished after the inspection. The co-sharers of the land had verified the existence of the khal for a the long period. In order to substantiate the plea of the non-existence of the khal, the petitioner had raised construction at the spot. From these facts an inference was drawn against the petitioner. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the view taken by the authority is not in conformity with the evidence on the file. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner had made a categorical assertion before the Bench that respondent-Banta Singh had not even sought the restoration of any existing khal. He had only prayed for the sanction of a new water course. On the persistence of the counsel, the original file was sent for. It has been produced. On an examination of the file, we find that initially the respondent had expressed an apprehension that the present petitioner was going to demolish the khal which had been in existence on the land for more than 40 years. Ultimately by a second application he had prayed for the restoration of the existing khal. On examination of the file we are satisfied that the prayer was for the restoration of the khal and that the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is not tenable. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is, consequently, dismissed with costs. The costs are assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. The original file which was shown to us by Mr. Berry has been returned. Petition dismissed.