JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent no.2-Divisional Canal Officer whereby watercourse ‘AB’ in the middle of land of petitioner has been ordered to be restored and the order dated 19.11.2012 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent no.1-Superintending Canal Officer whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that the petitioner and his family members are owners of a piece of land as shown in green colour and respondent no.3 is owner of three different parcels of land as shown in yellow colour in site plan (Annexure P-1). Pucca watercourse is in existence at the spot upto point ‘D’ and respondent no.3 was irrigating his land through underground pipes from points ‘D’ to ‘C’. The land of petitioner is being irrigated through a kacha watercourse shown in blue line and watercourse is in existence upto point ‘A’. Respondent no.3 got consolidated his turn of water at one place i.e. khata no.47 and his naka taking is at point 35//17/1-2 as denoted in the site plan at point ‘X’ and naka giving is at point 57//16-25, 58//20-21, as denoted in the site plan at point ‘Y’ and the same is duly reflected in Warabandi (arrangement of turn of water) (Annexure P-2) prepared in the year 1997 which has been subsequently amended on 08.07.2011 under Section 68 (3) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (in short ‘the 1873 Act’). It is further averred that in the year 1988, some portion of land was sold by the petitioner to respondent no.3 vide registered sale deed dated 28.12.1988, however, respondent no.3 has encroached upon some more portion of land. The demarcation at the spot was carried out on 14.05.2012 vide demarcation report Annexure P-3 and land of petitioner was got completed. Thereafter, respondent no.3 moved application to the Divisional Canal Officer stating that watercourse ‘AB’ was running through the land of petitioner which has been demolished by the petitioner. The demarcation at the spot was carried out on 14.05.2012 vide demarcation report Annexure P-3 and land of petitioner was got completed. Thereafter, respondent no.3 moved application to the Divisional Canal Officer stating that watercourse ‘AB’ was running through the land of petitioner which has been demolished by the petitioner. The application was referred to the Sub Divisional Officer for enquiry and thereafter it was sent to Ziledar, who after inspection at the spot, recorded the statements of shareholders and made a report that at the spot, turn of water of respondent no.3 is in khata no.47, naka taking is at 35//17/1-2 and naka giving is at 57//16-25, 58//20-21. It was also reported that neither there is any watercourse in existence at rect. no.56//15 nor any naka has been shown in the warabandi. The report of Ziledar is dated 11.06.2012 (Annexre P-4). Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Officer examined the report and agreed with it and submitted that no watercourse has been demolished and did not recommend for restoration of watercourse. It is also averred that respondent no.3 is a politically connected person and he approached the Divisional Canal Officer, who directed Sub Divisional Officer to reexamine the matter and submit a fresh report. Accordingly, the Sub Divisional Officer submitted the report dated 02.08.2012 taking a UTurn that watercourse leading to the area of respondent no.3 has been demolished and recommended for restoration of the watercourse ‘AB’ under Section 30 FF of the 1873 Act. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P-7), respondent no.2 allowed the application of respondent no.3 and ordered restoration of demolished watercourse through rect. no.56//15 which was running directly from point ‘A’ of kacha watercourse. Against that, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no.1-Superintending Canal Officer which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.11.2012 (Annexure P-9)). Hence, this writ petition. 3. In pursuance of notice of motion, the respondents have filed written statement. Respondents no.1 and 2 have filed joint written statement and supported the impugned orders passed by the canal authorities. Respondent no.3 has filed separate written statement contending that there are mis-stated facts and the petitioner is not entitled to the indulgence of this Court. In fact, in the year 1988, the petitioner was owner of land comprised in rect. no.56 killa no.13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, rect. no.61, killa nos.2 to 9 and 13/2, 14/1. In fact, in the year 1988, the petitioner was owner of land comprised in rect. no.56 killa no.13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, rect. no.61, killa nos.2 to 9 and 13/2, 14/1. Vide sale deed dated 28.12.1988 (Annexure R-3/1), the petitioner sold land measuring 34 kanals comprised in rect. no.56, killa no.16(8-0), 17 (8-0), 18 min. (1-0) 23min (1-0), 24(8-0), 25(8-0) to respondent no.3 and his brother-Sukhdev Singh for a sale consideration of Rs.1,27,500/-. It is mentioned in the sale deed that all rights attached with the land i.e. path, watercourse, turn of water and trees etc. will go with the purchasers. Respondent no.3 was getting water through watercourse ‘AB’ which has been demolished by the petitioner. The canal authorities have rightly restored the watercourse. It is further pleaded that as per khasra girdawari, the land has been yielding two crops in a year since 1988. The pattern was either Cotton-Wheat or Cotton-Potato or Paddy-Wheat. Warabandi for the land of respondent no.3 was sanctioned at khata no.46/339 under Section 68 of the 1873 Act. The matter was compromised between the parties in police station vide compromise (Annexure R3/5). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner is owner of land as shown in green colour and respondent no.3 is owner of land as shown in yellow colour in site plan (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel further contended that respondent no.3 got consolidated his turn of water at khata no.47 with regard to his land including the land purchased from petitioner as entire land of respondent no.3 falls in this chak. Learned counsel further contended that there is no naka taking or giving in rect. no.56 where land of respondent no.3 is in existence or where alleged demolished watercourse ‘AB’ is stated to be existed. Learned counsel further contended that Ziledar specifically recorded a finding that there is no naka taking or giving at point ‘A’, rather respondent no.3 is taking naka at point ‘X’ and and giving naka at point ‘Y’ shown in the site plan which are on pucca watercourse touching the major chunk of land of respondent no.3. The Sub Divisional Officer has concurred with the said report, however, subsequently report was changed for the reasons best known to him. The Sub Divisional Officer has concurred with the said report, however, subsequently report was changed for the reasons best known to him. The said change is contrary to the documentary evidence on record. Learned counsel further contended that consolidated turn of water is at khata no.47 where they have even included the turn of water which could have been fixed on the other tak surrounding the land of petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent no.3 have vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that respondent no.3 is taking water at point ‘X’ and is irrigating the land comprised in rect. no.56 through watercourse ‘XAB’. The khasra girdawaris show that two crops are being sown and harvested in a year. Learned counsel further contended that two crops cannot be flourished in a year without irrigation and reference to site plan (Annexure R-3/2) has been made. Since respondent no.3 is a purchaser of land from the petitioner, he is entitled to water as per the terms and conditions of sale deed (Annexure R-3/1) and straight watercourse ‘AB’ was in existence and it has been demolished. The finding of fact has been recorded by the canal authorities. 7. I have given my conscious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the record placed on the paper-book. 8. The turns of water are fixed under Section 68 of the 1873 Act. When turns of water are fixed, Warabandi is prepared by the Deputy Collector after hearing the parties. In the present case, a part of land was purchased by respondent no.3 from the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 28.12.1988 (Annexure R-3/1). In addition to it, he is having other land consisting of killa no.57//4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18/1, 23/2 and 24/1 which is on pucca watercourse ‘XY’. The naka taking is at point ‘X’ and naka giving is at point ‘Y’. Here approximately, land measuring 64 kanals and 40 kanals of respondent no.3 falls at some distances around the land of petitioner which can be irrigated by different watercourses i.e. ‘XD’ and ‘XAB’. The naka taking is at point ‘X’ and naka giving is at point ‘Y’. Here approximately, land measuring 64 kanals and 40 kanals of respondent no.3 falls at some distances around the land of petitioner which can be irrigated by different watercourses i.e. ‘XD’ and ‘XAB’. Perusal of site plan (Annexure P-1) reveals that watercourses ‘XY’ and ‘XD’ are pucca, however, watercourse ‘XA’ is pucca shown in green colour upto the dividing point of killa nos.22/2 and 22/3 from where the watercourse turns towards point ‘A’ and remaining part of ‘XA’ is kacha which is shown in blue colour. It is admitted case that respondent no.3 got consolidated his wari at khata no.47 of total land measuring 120 kanals 14 marlas which is being irrigated by watercourse ‘XY’. 9. Perusal of Warabandi (Annexure P-2) prepared in the year 1997 clearly indicates that turn of water of respondent no.3 has been fixed with regard to 120 kanals 14 marlas, meaning thereby that respondent no.3 has not got fixed his turn for land comprised in rect. no.56 around the land of the petitioner. The entire wari is on the watercourse ‘XY’. Respondent no.3 got fixed the turn of water by consolidating the same at khata no.47 and he had got lifted the turn from earlier khata no.44 and merged with present khata no.47. This is clear from Warabandi (Annexure P-2). It needs to be explained, when turns are fixed on the concerned watercourse, naka taking (point from where the shareholders will get water is fixed) and naka giving (point from where he will give the water to the other person) are fixed. 10. In the present case, Warabandi which was initially prepared on 07.05.1997 and has been subsequently amended on 08.07.2011 clearly indicates that Wari of respondent no.3 has been fixed for the entire land i.e. 120 kanals which includes the land purchased from the petitioner. His naka taking has been fixed at rect. no.35//17/1-2 at ‘X’ and naka giving is at the point ‘Y’, rect. no.57//16-25 and 58//20-21. Perusal of site plan (Annexure P-1) reveals that point ‘X’ is naka taking and point ‘Y’ is naka giving, meaning thereby the petitioner is taking water at point ‘X’ and giving water at point ‘Y’. It makes clear that water runs from point ‘X’ and irrigates the fields of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner gives water to the next shareholder at point ‘Y’. It makes clear that water runs from point ‘X’ and irrigates the fields of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner gives water to the next shareholder at point ‘Y’. This is beyond imagination that when naka taking is at point ‘X’ and giving is at point ‘Y’, how the petitioner can irrigate his fields through watercourse ‘XA’ and the same is altogether a different source of irrigation and number of other shareholders will intervene and it cannot be irrigated through watercourse ‘XD’ which is pucca. 11. Once respondent no.3 got consolidated his turn of water, he cannot have naka taking and giving at other place. The consolidation of turns is at particular tak. It is very much clear from the fact that earlier turns were at khata nos.44 and 47 which respondent no.3 has got merged at khata no.47. As such, question of existence of watercourse ‘AB’ does not arise. It is settled principle of law that watercourse cannot divide the land of the owner. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon Pritam Singh vs. The Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Main Line Circle, Patiala and others 1996 PLJ 287. If at all it could have been along side the passage which is shown with orange clour, no question of straight line watercourse could have arisen. It could have created a problem in cultivating the fields for the petitioner. Even the existence of watercourse ‘AB’ does not appeal to reasons as it will bifurcate the land of the petitioner. There is clear misreading and non-reading of document i.e. Warabandi which was existing prior to purchase of land by respondent no.3 and amendment in 1997 when turn of water was consolidated at the instance of respondent no.3. 12. Perusal of impugned orders reveals that respondents no.1 and 2 had not even made any enquiry nor they have perused the enquiry got conducted through Ziledar. Ziledar in his report dated 15.06.2012 (Annexure P-4) specifically made reference to the non-existence of watercourse, naka taking and giving and thereafter made report that at the spot, watercourse ‘AB’ was not in existence. The said report has been ignored without recording any reason. The first report (Annexure P-5) submitted by Sub Divisional Officer confirming the report of Ziledar was made on 18.06.2012 stating that watercourse ‘AB’ was not in existence and Sub Divisional Officer sent second report on 02.08.2012 where he took a contradictory stand. The said report has been ignored without recording any reason. The first report (Annexure P-5) submitted by Sub Divisional Officer confirming the report of Ziledar was made on 18.06.2012 stating that watercourse ‘AB’ was not in existence and Sub Divisional Officer sent second report on 02.08.2012 where he took a contradictory stand. Respondent no.2 allowed the application of respondent no.3 within 27 days of receipt of revised report of Sub Divisional Officer and passed the impugned order dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P-7) in a hot haste manner which apparently appears to be based under some pressure. So far as case law Karam Singh vs. Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind, Canal Circle Ludhiana and others 1988(2) The Punjab Law Reporter 254 is concerned, the same is of no help to respondent no.3. In Karam Singh’s case (supra), reference to the existence of Warabandi was taken into consideration for restoration of watercourse by the authority which has been affirmed. In the present case, report of Ziledar and initial report of the Sub Divisional Officer were to the effect that no watercourse ‘AB’ is in existence. Even as per the Warabandi, no watercourse ‘AB’ is shown in existence and there is no naka taking or giving shown in turn of water at rect. no.56 where field of respondent no.3 exists. 13. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed, impugned orders dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P-7) and 19.11.2012 (Annexure P-9) are set aside and application moved by respondent no.3 regarding restoration of demolished watercourse at Outlet Burji No.28644/T.F Bhundar Minor Village Bhundar is dismissed. 14. However, respondent no.3 will be at liberty to avail remedy in accordance with law for fixation turns of water for different taks of his land. No order as to costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————