JUDGMENT Mr. Ajai Lamba, J.: (Oral) - This civil writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-5 dated 23.07.2009 passed by Superintending Canal Officer, Hisar whereby, revision petition filed by respondent No. 3 has been accepted and order of Divisional Canal Officer Annexure P-4 has been set aside. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner claims that watercourse A B C D and E F has been in existence for 40 years. Warabandi has been sanctioned since the year 1964. The respondent No. 3 purchased land from Hemraj son of Ditta Ram and Sunil son of Hem Raj in the year 2007. For their own personal convenience, the watercourse at the said points has been demolished. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (for short ‘The Act’) praying for restoration of the watercourse that had been demolished by respondent No. 3. Facts further indicate that vide order Annexure P-1 passed by Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Ghaggar Water Services, Tohana, it has been directed that watercourse A B C D and E F be restored. A positive finding has been returned that the said watercourse had been dismantled and irrigation to the land of the petitioner had been stopped. 3. It seems that aggrieved by the order, the respondent filed appeal before Divisional Canal Officer. The Divisional Canal Officer, vide order Annexure P-2, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by Sub Divisional Canal Officer. 4. The respondent filed a revision petition before the Superintending Canal Officer purportedly under Section 2 of the Act. Vide order Annexure P-3, the Superintending Canal Officer remanded the matter back to Divisional Canal Officer to reconsider the matter in the light of present irrigation of the area. It has been observed that there were 6 shareholders of the watercourse, however, the others had not come forward to challenge the action of the respondents in dismantling the watercourse and, therefore, investigation is required. 5. The Divisional Canal Officer again considered the matter, after order of remand. It has been observed that there were 6 shareholders of the watercourse, however, the others had not come forward to challenge the action of the respondents in dismantling the watercourse and, therefore, investigation is required. 5. The Divisional Canal Officer again considered the matter, after order of remand. The other shareholders namely Birsa Singh and others appeared before the Divisional Canal Officer and stated that the earlier orders passed by Sub Divisional Canal Officer and Divisional Canal Officer, placed on record as Annexures P-1 and P-2, were the correct orders. A perusal of order Annexure P-4 makes it evident that the other shareholders had also come forward and, therefore, the query raised in order Annexure P-3 i.e. order of remand, stood satisfied. The Divisional Canal Officer, vide order Annexure P-4, again ordered restoration of the watercourse with a finding that irrigation to the fields of 6 shareholders is suffering. 6. The respondent again carried revision before the Superintending Canal Officer which has been allowed vide impugned order Annexure P-5. The impact and effect of the order is that the petitioner has been asked to draw water from an alternate watercourse. 7. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that in a matter under Section 24 of the Act, an alternate watercourse could not have been provided and the petitioner could not have been directed to draw water from an alternate watercourse. The scope of provisions under Section 24 of the Act is only to enquire whether a watercourse indeed existed and whether it has been demolished or altered. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the land holding of the petitioner shall be disturbed. Learned counsel for the private respondent further states that the respondent is ready to provide watercourse from points E F, however, not at points A B C and D. 9. I have considered the rival contentions. 10. It is not in dispute that an application had been filed under Section 24 of the Act for restoration of the watercourse that had been in existence and that allegedly had been demolished by the respondents. 11. The Sub-Divisional Canal Officer and Divisional Canal Officer have held as a matter of fact that watercourse at points A B C D and E F was in existence which had been demolished by the respondent No. 3. 11. The Sub-Divisional Canal Officer and Divisional Canal Officer have held as a matter of fact that watercourse at points A B C D and E F was in existence which had been demolished by the respondent No. 3. The finding to this effect has not been disturbed by the revisional authority. The impugned order does not deal with the findings recorded by the Divisional Canal Officer or the Sub Divisional Canal Officer. It has not been held anywhere that the respondent had not demolished the watercourse or there was no watercourse in existence at points A B C D and points E F. 12. Since the scope of Section 24 of the Act is only confined to restoration of the watercourses. I find the order passed by the revisional authority to be beyond jurisdiction. Under the said provision, alternate watercourse could not have been provided. In such circumstances, I find that the impugned order Annexure P-5 is palpably illegal. 13. The impugned order adversely affects the rights of the petitioner and other shareholders whose fields were being irrigated from the watercourse that has been demolished by the respondents. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be plausible that after purchase of land by respondent No. 3, for their own convenience, the watercourse has been demolished. Thus equitable approach also supports the case of the petitioner. 14. The revisional authority could not have travelled beyond the scope of Section 24 of the Act by way of providing an alternate watercourse. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable in law and calls for judicial review. 15. The petition is accordingly allowed. Order Annexure P-5 is hereby quashed. --------------