JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: (Oral) - Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 04.09.2014 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services Circle-1, Hisar-respondent No.1, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.07.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana Water Services Division, Narwana, District Jind-respondent No.2, was dismissed upholding the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer. 2. Notice of motion was issued, vide order dated 29.10.2014 but there was no interim order. Respondents filed their written statements and petitioner filed his replication. Thereafter, writ petition was admitted for regular hearing, vide order dated 21.01.2016 and it was also observed that pendency of the writ petition would not mean any impediment in the way of executing the impugned order. 3. Feeling aggrieved in the absence of any interim order, petitioner filed LPA No.247 of 2016 against the admission order dated 21.01.2016 but said order was not modified nor any interim order was granted by the LPA Bench while disposing the LPA, vide its order dated 05.09.2016. However, direction was issued to the Registry to list the writ petition for early hearing. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is a matter of record that since parties to lis were co-sharers in the joint khata, partition proceedings were carried out and it came to be finalized in the year 2008. Khatoni partition dated 03.10.2008 was prepared and khasra Nos.8/2 (0-8), 9/3 (0-13) and 10/3 (0-5) were kept reserved for watercourse. It is so recorded in the khatoni partition and these above said three pieces of land have been recorded as gar mumkin khal (watercourse). Respondent No.4, alleging that petitioner has dismantled the watercourse through khasra No.9/3, approached the canal authorities for restoration thereof. His application was dismissed by Sub Divisional Canal Officer, vide order dated 26.03.2013 (Annexure P-1). 6. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.4 filed his appeal, vide Annexure P-2 which came to be allowed by Divisional Canal Officerrespondent No.2, vide his order dated 22.07.2013 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner filed his revision petition which came to be dismissed by Superintending Canal Officer, vide his impugned order dated 04.09.2014 (Annexure P-7). Hence, this writ petition. 7. 6. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.4 filed his appeal, vide Annexure P-2 which came to be allowed by Divisional Canal Officerrespondent No.2, vide his order dated 22.07.2013 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner filed his revision petition which came to be dismissed by Superintending Canal Officer, vide his impugned order dated 04.09.2014 (Annexure P-7). Hence, this writ petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that case of the petitioner is based on technicalities alone. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.4 should not have sought restoration of watercourse but he should have sought execution of the deed of partition (sanand takseem) by approaching the revenue authorities. However, when confronted with the fact to point out as to from which watercourse respondent No.4 was earlier irrigating his land, learned counsel for the petitioner had no answer. In such a situation, it becomes more relevant as to how the Divisional Canal Officer passed the impugned order dated 22.07.2013 (Annexure P-3). 8. A bare perusal of the order passed by Divisional Canal Officer- respondent No.2 would make it crystal clear that before passing the said order, he himself inspected the site on 21.07.2013 and satisfied himself about the fact situation obtaining at the site, to the effect that except disputed watercourse, there was no other source of irrigation for the fields of respondent No.4. 9. Operative part of the order passed by Divisional Canal Officer-respondent No.2 which deserves to be noticed herein, reads as under:- “I have heard the arguments of both the parties. The decision of Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamtan W/S Sub Division, Narwana and other relevant record have been perused. The appellant has produced a civil record of partition deed of their joint holding in which the field No.40/9/3 has been kept reserved for watercourse which is reserved in the partition deed of their joint holding. I do not agree with the findings of Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamtan W/S Sub Division, Narwana as every irrigator should provide the source of irrigation according to the provision as laid down under Section 24 of Haryana Canal and Drainage Act of 1974. The area of the appellant as per the official record was getting irrigation at site through the watercourse in dispute. The area of the appellant as per the official record was getting irrigation at site through the watercourse in dispute. I also inspected the site of disputed watercourse on 21.07.2013 and there is no other source of irrigation except of watercourse in dispute and therefore, I order to restore the demolished watercourse to its original condition for ever by setting aside the decision of Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamtan W/S Sub Division, Narwana. The decision he conveyed to all concerned accordingly.” 10. Section 2(15) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 provides the definition of watercourse and the same reads as under:- “watercourse means any channel including all its subsidiary works which is supplied with water from a canal, but not maintained at the cost of the State Government, and is sanctioned under this Act or is in existence under an agreement or by prescription.” 11. Once the parties have agreed and that too way back in the year 2008 that khasra No.9/3 measuring 13 marla shall be kept reserved for watercourse, petitioner would have no right to object to the application moved by respondent No.4 for watercourse through khasra Nos.8/2, 9/3 and 10/3 as all these pieces of land have been earmarked for watercourse with the consent of both the parties. 12. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the watercourse in question through khasra No.9/3 will certainly satisfy the ingredients of watercourse as defined in Section 2(15) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, it being a watercourse by way of agreement. Once it is so, Divisional Canal Officer was well within his jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 22.07.2013 (Annexure P-3) and the same was rightly upheld by the Superintending Canal Officer while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, both the impugned orders deserve to be upheld. 13. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any patent illegality in either of the impugned orders. Further, no prejudice of any kind, whatsoever, has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, which might have been caused to the petitioner by passing the impugned orders, warranting interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 14. No other argument was raised. 15. Further, no prejudice of any kind, whatsoever, has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, which might have been caused to the petitioner by passing the impugned orders, warranting interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 14. No other argument was raised. 15. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that instant writ petition is wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substantce, thus, it must fail. No caase for interference has been made out. 16. Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made, present writ petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.