Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

During the pendency of the aforesaid petition before Superintending Canal Officer, a fresh report from the Divisional Canal Officer was sought and after perusal thereof the following order was passed:-

"The arguments of both the parties have heard in details. The Site Plan, Case File and all others relevant records attached and fresh report of Divisional Canal Officer, Rori W/S Division, Sirsa dated 13.11.2019, as asked, was perused properly. From perusal of NSL of land of respondents, it is clear that the slope of land is towards eastern side while the lined watercourse passes along the holding of respondent towards western side which is at higher side and better irrigation is possible. The argument of the revisionist that the lined watercourse in between Rect./Kila no.75//24-25 is constructed by them at their own land and also their own cost is also wrong because this watercourse is approved upto point Rect./Kila No.75//24x92//5 by the Superintending Canal Officer Sirsa lining Circle HSMITC, Sirsa, 2 of 4 vide his decision dated 08.11.1989. No other proof is on record in favour of this claim of self construction of watercourse. Thus, this claim is also liable to be rejected.

This Court has considered the submission. It is apparent from the reading of the concurrent orders passed by all the three authorities that the lined water channel in between Rect./killa no.75//24- 25 is an approved water course by Superintending Canal Officer, Sirsa, 3 of 4 Line Circle, HSMITC, Sirsa, vide decision dated 08.11.1989. Therefore, both the authorities as a matter of fact have found that the aforesaid water channel has not been constructed by the petitioners. Both the authorities have also found that due to slope of land towards eastern side, the respondent no.4 was unable to get proper irrigation and therefore, it has been found appropriate to shift him to other water channel.