The petitioner challenged orders restoring a damaged water course to the respondent. The Court found the restoration was temporary and based on verified records, and dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to seek remedies after one year.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.8391 of 2024
2024:PHHC:058589
-1-
111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.8391 of 2024 Date of decision: 29.04.2024
Darshan Singh
..... Petitioner
versus
Chief Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services Circle, Panchkula and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate and Mr. Tushar Gera, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Upasna Dhawan, AAG, Haryana with Mr. Roshan Lal, SDR, Tohana. ****
RAJESH BHARDWAJ J.
RITTU 2024.05.01 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.8391 of 2024
2024:PHHC:058589
-2-
passed by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Tohana Water Services Division, Tohana has been dismissed illegally and arbitrarily and ordered the Water Course to be restored temporarily without considering the factual and legal aspects of the matter in its correct perspective and thereby leading to miscarriage of justice. Further prayer has been made for directing the Canal Authorities not to restore the aforementioned water course temporarily or permanently.
RITTU 2024.05.01 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.8391 of 2024
2024:PHHC:058589
-3-
Divisional Canal Officer dated 22.08.2022 and Divisional Canal Officer dated 27.02.2023. He has further submitted that being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 20(2) of the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, 1974 before the learned Chief Canal Officer i.e. respondent No.1. However, the learned Chief Canal Officer had again fallen in error in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 19.12.2023. He has submitted that the respondent authorities have passed the impugned orders in violation of the statutory provisions and the evidence on record. He submits that the application was filed by respondent No.5 for restoration of the damaged water course from point a, b, c as depicted in the map, which is placed on record as Annexure P-6, on the ground that the same was demolished by the petitioner. He submits that the water course runs from outlet No.19300/T.F. He has submitted that the respondent authorities failed to appreciate that as per the warabandi, there was no such water course as alleged by respondent No.5. He submits that from the khaka plan dated 27.11.2000 of Chak outlet No.RD-19300/T.F. Gajuwala, the link channel is not established from the parat warabandi dated 11.11.1992 and 20.12.2000. He submits that once respondent No.5 has failed to prove the existence of demolished water course as asserted then restoration of the same by the respondent authorities is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. He submits that the water course is unlined (kachha) and the same would divide the land of the petitioner into two parts which would seriously prejudiced the petitioner. He submits that the respondent authorities without there being any record regarding the existence of the
RITTU 2024.05.01 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.8391 of 2024
2024:PHHC:058589
-4-
alleged water course has illegally restored the same and thus the impugned order being unsustainable in the eyes of law deserves to be set aside.
RITTU 2024.05.01 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.8391 of 2024
2024:PHHC:058589
-5-
learned Divisional Canal Officer dismissed the same vide his order dated 27.02.2023 being time barred. The revision petition was filed by the petitioner before the learned Superintending Canal Officer. On hearing both the sides and perusing the record, the learned Superintending Canal Officer found no infirmity in the order passed and thus, restored the water course for one year from the date of its actual restoration at site vide his order dated 12.09.2023. Still being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Chief Canal Officer, who upheld the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer. Thus it is apparent on perusal of the record that the water course sought to be restored is a kachha water course and the same has been restored on temporary basis for one year from the date of its actual date of restoration.
RITTU 2024.05.01 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.8391 of 2024
-62024:PHHC:058589
impugned orders at this stage. The present petition is thus dismissed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 29.04.2024 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
RITTU 2024.05.01 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the restoration of an unlined water course was legally sustainable?
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Darshan Singh
Chief Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services Circle, Panchkula
Rajesh Bhardwaj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
