Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1650 (PNJ)

Barjinder Kaur v. State of Punjab

2013-12-10

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2013
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. The petitioner is a shareholder of O/L 13243/R. Bhunder Minor. He purchased 135 Kanals land from one Gurjit Singh and has been using watercourse passing through the land bearing Khasra Nos. 57//16/2, 25 belonging to Lakhwinder Singh since 1978, which has been demolished by him. The petitioner moved an application for restoration of the demolished watercourse. The restoration of the watercourse was recommended by the Ziledar, but her application was dismissed by the Divisional Canal Officer vide his order dated 23.01.2013 and her appeal was dismissed by the Superintendent Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal, Ludhiana, on 11.07.2013. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Divisional Canal Officer has erred in ignoring the report of Ziledar and the existence of watercourse at point DE and admitted the existence of watercourse BC, but did not inspect the site personally. It is submitted that once the watercourse was being used for irrigation and demolished, it requires to be restored. 2. I have learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. 3. The Divisional Canal Officer has held that "as per the report Divisional Officer Senna, the rakba of the applicant is being irrigated through Khal BC. The applicant has mentioned that Khal has been demolished from point DE but as per the inspection report of the spot conducted by Divisional Officer Sehna that no marks of Khal being demolished has been found. As per the statements of shareholders of the Moga, it has been found that there is no Khal at point DE. The rakba of the applicant is being irrigated from Khal BC which goes from Khal AB. The prayer of the applicant, the Khal has been demolished cannot be accepted". 4. The Superintendent Canal Officer also passed the following order:-- The concerned Ziledar was also questioned by this Court that Khal BC is running at the spot as per the map attached with the revenue file then he, in a statement, stated that the Khal BC is present at the spot and vide this Khal the rakba of the appellants is being irrigated through the water of canal due to which it has been made clear before this Court that the rakba of the appellants is being properly irrigated vide Khal BC as per the map attached with the revenue file. The appellants were not able to produce any evidence regarding demolishing of the Khal. The appellants were not able to produce any evidence regarding demolishing of the Khal. This Court reached the conclusion that the rakba of the appellants is being properly irrigated by the Khal BC as per the map attached with the revenue file so it would not be appropriate that another Khal be provided for irrigation to the appellant. The demolishing of the Khal by the opposite party have not been proved due to which the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and order dated 23.02.2013 passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Bathinda Division, Bathinda is upheld. 5. Once the Divisional Canal Officer asked the concerned Ziledar that Khal BC, which is shown in the site plan Annexure P-1, is running at the spot and the land of the petitioner is being irrigated through that Khal and the petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the demolition of the Khal DE, it has been found that it cannot be restored and right of the petitioner is also not being prejudiced as he is getting water from Khal BC.. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.