Judgment 1. The defendant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by both the courts below where the defendants were restrained from creating any hindrance in the free flow of rainy water through the disputed Nala Sem by way of cultivation or otherwise. 2. The dispute between the parties is regarding Khasra No.21. As per the plaintiffs the said Khasra was reserved during consolidation for Nala Sem but the defendants have alleged that they have right to use the said Khasra number on the basis of sale in their favour about 40 years ago. 3. It has been found by both the Courts below that Khasra no.21 is, in fact, reflected as that of Nala Sem and therefore, the defendants cannot raise any obstruction in the user of the said area for the purposes of Nala Sem made for the common use of the residents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he is not obstructing the free flow of water but having purchased the land as a proprietor, the petitioner is entitled to cultivate the land. However, I am unable to accept the said argument. In the revenue record, Khasra No.21 measuring 62 Kanals 16 Marlas is reflected that of Nala Sem. It is the entire Khasra number which is of Nala. Therefore, I am unable to accept the argument that the same is part of the said Khasra number and could be cultivated by the defendants. 5. Shri Hoshiarpuri, learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Jamabandi for the year 2002-03 in respect of Khasra number no.21 to contend that the part of Khasra number is in possession of pakhar Singh. The said change in entry in the Jamabandi is not supported by any mutation or Rapat Roznamcha. The question whether the defendant is in part cultivating possession of Khasra No.21 or entire khasra number is Nala Sem is a question of fact. But prima facie on the basis of revenue record before the Courts below it has been rightly found that the same is reserved for Nala Sem. 6. In view of above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the two Courts below with may warrant interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed.