JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - The compendium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, Bhagwan Singh son of Kishan Singh and his son Tarsem Singh (private respondent Nos.3 & 4) moved an application before the Divisional Canal Officer (for brevity “the DCO”), Eastern Division, Ferozepur Canal Circle (respondent No.2) for restoration of watercourse in question, depicted as mark ‘CDE’ in the site plan (Annexure P2) on outlet Burji bearing No.38250/R Rajbah Nizamwah, which was stated to have been demolished by the petitioner. 2. The DCO sent the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer (in short “the SDO”) and Ziledar, Ferozepur for inquiry and after receiving their reports, he ordered the restoration of the indicated watercourse, by virtue of order dated 5.11.2008 (Annexure P1). 3. Dissatisfied with the order (Annexure P1), the petitioner filed the appeal, which was accepted and the Superintending Canal Officer (for short “the SCO”) (respondent No.1) remanded the case to the DCO for passing a speaking order, by means of order dated 2.6.2009 (Annexure P3). 4. After remand, the DCO again ordered the restoration of the indicated watercourse, in exercise of his powers under section 30 FF (2) of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”), by way of impugned order dated 7.4.2010 (Annexure P4). 5. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P4), the petitioner and his wife Surjit Kaur filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the SCO (respondent No.1), by way of impugned order dated 28.7.2011 (Annexure P5). 6. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P4 and P5) invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 8. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the existence of watercourse in question was not proved, so the Canal Authorities committed a legal mistake in restoring it, sans merit. 9. 8. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the existence of watercourse in question was not proved, so the Canal Authorities committed a legal mistake in restoring it, sans merit. 9. As is evident from the record, that respondent Nos.3 & 4 were irrigating their land from the watercourse, through the medium of outlet Burji bearing No.38250/R Rajbah Nizamwah, which was claimed to have been demolished by the petitioner, culminating into stoppage of irrigation of their fields and causing huge losses to them (respondent Nos.3 & 4). Therefore, they moved an application for restoration of the watercourse in question. 10. The DCO sent the matter to the SDO and Ziledar, Ferozepur for investigation and enquiry. The Ziledar inspected the spot of the demolished watercourse, made enquiries from the Halqa Patwari, recorded the statements of all the co-sharers and recommended the matter for restoration of the watercourse to the SDO. The SDO submitted a detailed report in this behalf. After receipt of the report of the SDO, perusing the record, providing adequate opportunity to the parties concerned and after following the due procedure, the DCO came to a definite conclusion that the irrigation of the fields of private respondents is being badly affected by not restoring the watercourse to the land, which has been demolished at the eastern side of the killa No.21/2 from the point, denominated by letters “CDE” 27.M and rightly ordered its restoration, by means of impugned order (Annexure P4). 11. Not only that, the order of DCO was duly upheld by the SCO (appellate authority) and considered all the relevant factors in this respect, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P5), which, in substance, is as under:- “Order: After hearing both the parties on 7.6.2011, the orders of this case were reserved. The arguments advanced by the appellant, their counsel and respondents who were present on the date of hearing 7.6.2011, were carefully examined. The appellants argued that the place where the respondents wanted to restore the demolished water course, has not been demolished by the appellants and they have already provided 2 killas of land for the purpose of water course. We don’t have to give any new water course. The appellants argued that the place where the respondents wanted to restore the demolished water course, has not been demolished by the appellants and they have already provided 2 killas of land for the purpose of water course. We don’t have to give any new water course. Whereas the respondents stated that the appellants have demolished the water course C.E.D 27 M which is used for irrigating their fields from killa no.21/2 East because of which the irrigation to their fields has been stopped. Thus this water course may be restored to its actual position. The record pertaining to the case was carefully perused. The site plan was also perused. The orders dated 7.4.2010 passed by Divisional Canal Officer Eastern was also perused. The case was carefully perused for a long time and after carefully examining, the undersigned came to the conclusion that Divisional Canal Officer, Eastern Division has passed this detailed order after making spot inspection regarding the demolition of water course by the appellant, on the basis of the detailed inquiry and on the basis of strong evidences, which is perfectly correct and as per rules. The policy of the Govt. is in favour of maximum irrigation of fields and for better agriculture produce. Thus this land can be better irrigated and produce better agriculture produce only when it has water course from the canal water for the irrigation purpose. Thus while agreeing with the demand of the respondents for the better irrigation of their fields for producing better agricultural produce, the undersigned while acting under Section 30(F)(F) of Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 and Punjab Amendment Act 23/1965 the water course C.D.E. as depicted in the site plan is ordered to be restored to its original position, meaning thereby the present appeal is dismissed and the orders dated 7.4.2010 passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Eastern Division, Ferozepur are upheld. These orders were kept reserved so both the parties may be informed as per the rules.” 12. Sequelly, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any material, much less cogent, even to suggest remotely as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal or warrant any interference by this Court in this regard. 13. These orders were kept reserved so both the parties may be informed as per the rules.” 12. Sequelly, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any material, much less cogent, even to suggest remotely as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal or warrant any interference by this Court in this regard. 13. In this manner, the canal authorities have scrutinized the entire material on record in the right perspective, came to a definite conclusion that the watercourse in question, described by letters “CDE”, was in existence, which was subsequently demolished by the petitioner, recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant direction and rightly ordered its (watercourse) restoration. Since no ground for interference, in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this court, is made out, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P4 & P5) deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner. 15. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. --------------