JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: (Oral) - Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 16.1.2015 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Pundri Water Services Division, Kaithal, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, upholding the orders dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure P-5) and dated 02.08.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by subordinate canal authorities, ordering restoration of disputed watercourse through two killa Nos. 18/2 and 24/1, shown in dotted blue lines along side land of the petitioner, as depicted in the site plan Annexure P-15, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 Constitution of India, seeking a writ of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned orders. 2. Notice of motion was issued and in compliance thereof, written statement was filed on behalf of official respondents. Separate written statement was filed on behalf of the private respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the State, in order to put the controversy to rest, rightly placed a photocopy of jamabandi for the year 1957-58 before this Court, to show that the disputed watercourse, as a matter of fact, was carved out during consolidation proceedings. It is specifically recorded in column no.12, which is meant for remarks of this jamabandi for the year 1957-58 that the disputed watercourse of one karam wide would be on the north side of khasra no.9, killa No.18/2 and killa no.24/1. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with this material entry in the revenue record, he had no answer and rightly so, it being a matter of record. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the respondent canal authorities committed no error of law while passing the impugned orders and the same deserves to be upheld. 5. Once the watercourse in dispute was carved out as such during the course of consolidation proceedings, petitioner had no right to dismantle the same and the private respondents were well within their rights to irrigate their land through the disputed watercourse. Had this entry not been recorded in the revenue record, matter might have been different. Once this water course was carved out during consolidation proceedings, whether it was actually running at the site later on or not, would also not make any material difference. Had this entry not been recorded in the revenue record, matter might have been different. Once this water course was carved out during consolidation proceedings, whether it was actually running at the site later on or not, would also not make any material difference. It is so said because after utilizing land for disputed watercourse from the consolidated land of the parties, proceedings would have been completed allotting respective share of the co-sharer including the petitioner and he would not have suffered any prejudice in this regard. Petitioner cannot raise any grouse at this stage that he should be compensated for the land through which the disputed watercourse is going. Under these undisputed circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the respondent Canal authorities were well within their jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders and the same deserves to be upheld, for this reason as well. 6. No other argument was raised. 7. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that since the impugned orders have not been found suffering from any patent illegality or perversity nor any prejudice has been shown which might have been caused to the petitioner by passing the impugned orders, the same deserves to be upheld. The present petition has been found wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substances, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. 8. Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made, present writ petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.