Manoj Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Prayer in this civil writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Barwala (in short 'SDCO'); order dated 04.11.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar (in short 'DCO') and order dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Superintending Canal Officer, Hisar (in short 'SCO').

¶16

Briefly, respondents No. 5 to 7 herein filed an application before the canal authorities under Section 24 of Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (in short '1974 Act'), seeking restoration of watercourse in chak of outlet RD 22900-Left Badhawar Distributary.

¶17

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-11452-2026 (O/M)

¶19

-22026:PHHC:058508

¶20

2.1 Upon receipt of aforesaid application by canal authorities, the matter was got investigated through the concerned Ziledar, who submitted his report dated 16.06.2025, stating therein that the watercourse was earlier passing on the northern side of khasra No. 33//4-5 from east to west, which had been dismantled.

¶21

2.2 Petitioner No. 1 (Manoj Kumar) opposed the aforesaid claim of private respondents No. 5 to 7 on the plea that there was no watercourse in existence and that the alleged channel was a private channel of petitioners for their own exclusive use. It was also stated by petitioners that private respondents No. 5 to 7 had an alternate watercourse available for irrigation, which was laid during consolidation operation in the village.

¶22

2.3 It appears that learned SDCO concerned, upon consideration of the matter, directed restoration of watercourse, vide order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), the relevant extract of which reads as under :-

¶23

“DECISION : I have carefully heard the arguments of all the affected persons, who appeared before the court. The site has also been inspected by me on 15/07/2025 and found that watercourse on north side of field No. 33/4-5 running eastern to western side was existing at site before its dismantling and clear nishan of dismantled watercourse has been found. This watercourse was sanctioned in warabandi on 25/04/2025.

¶24

In view of aforementioned facts the undersigned reached at the conclusion this watercourse falls under category of temporary watercourse under section 2(12) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act 29 of 1974. Hence, the watercourse

¶25

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CWP-11452-2026 (O/M)

¶27

-32026:PHHC:058508

¶28

is liable to restore passing through north side of Field No. 33/4-5 eastern to western side. Accordingly, I order to restore this watercourse for one year. The respondent is directed to restore the watercourse within 15 days without further loss of time failing which the watercourse will be restored as per Act.

¶29

Decision be conveyed to all concerned as per rule.”

¶30

2.4 Feeling aggrieved against aforesaid order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), petitioner No. 1 (Manoj Kumar) preferred an appeal before learned DCO. Similarly, private respondents No. 5 to 7 also filed their separate appeal against aforesaid order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-1). Both the aforesaid appeals came to be decided, vide a common order dated 04.11.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned DCO, by observing as under :-

¶31

“Decision:- I have examined the record in the case file, i.e. nakal khaka plan and warabandi, report of Zilledar, the decision dated 16.07.2025 given by SDCO/Barwala W/S Sub Division, Barwala, and the appeals of appellants filed by them. As per the khaka plan, the watercourse “AB” is showing in field no. 33//4-5 on the northern side, east to west, which was demolished by the respondents and taking/delivery point is sanctioned at 27//22x33//3. It is also evident that SDCO/Barwala W/S Sub Division, Barwala passed the order after site inspection and found clear nisan of the dismantled watercourse. At the time of hearing, both parties admitted that the holding was joint and the watercourse was running for a long period before its demolition but now not kept in partition.

¶32

Keeping in view the above briefing facts, and examining all the documents, I reached the conclusion that the watercourse was running in rectt/killa no. 33//4-5 on the

¶33

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CWP-11452-2026 (O/M)

¶35

-42026:PHHC:058508

¶36

northern side, east to west. It is argued and admitted that the disputed watercourse was running in the joint holding and the warabandi also jointly in record till date. The appeal of appellant Sh. Manoj etc. is considered legitimate. Hence, the cross appeal of appellant Sh. Ramkumar etc. to restore the watercourse is not considered legitimate and is hereby rejected. The SDCO/Barwala restore the watercourse under section 2(12) of the Act, and the order dated 16.07.2025 given by SDCO/Barwala Water Service Sub Division, Barwala is hereby upheld.”

¶37

2.5 Still aggrieved, petitioners preferred a revision petition before learned SCO. Similarly, private respondents also filed their separate revision before learned SCO. Both aforesaid revision petitions came to be decided, vide a common order dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-3), by observing as under :-

¶38

“Perusal of the approved parat warabandi dated 11.11.2013 shows that at that time khata/holding of the petitioner & respondents was joint one. The taking point of the holding was at rect./killa No. 27//5x28//10 and delivery points rect./killa No. 28//21x33/5. But after division of the holding taking point of the petitioner No. revision petition 107/2026 Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Kehar Singh is at rect./killa No. 27//22x33//3. Thus it is clear that the disputed watercourse remained in existence right from the time of joint holding.

¶39

So far as the plea of the petitioners in revision petition 102/2026 that there is a reserved watercourse in consolidation along Southern line of rect./killa No. 33//23, 24 & 25 from East to West is concerned, canal patwari reportd that levels do not suit as the land of Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Kehar Singh is more than one feet higher. Moreover, the said watercourse is not in operation. Resultantly there is no

¶40

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

CWP-11452-2026 (O/M)

¶42

-52026:PHHC:058508

¶43

possibility of irrigation by flow in the holding at Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Kehar Singh etc. even if watercourse is made operative. Although the petitioner of revision petition No. 102/2026 are not agreed to, yet the petitioners Ram Kumar & Dhupa Ss/o Sh. Kehar Singh have given in writing that if they are not ready to provide open watercourse hence in irrigation interest and to avoid depriving from canal irrigation the holding of the petitioners in revision petition No. 107/2026 an underground pipe line 03 ft. below the ground level in rect. Killa No. 33//4-5 along northern line two killa length is hereby sanctioned to be embedded at the cost of beneficiaries i.e Ram Kumar-Dhupa-Rajbir Ss/o Sh. Kehar Singh with two number hodies of 2.5 ft. x 2.5 ft. size having 3.5 ft depth, first in the Northern-Eastern corner of killa No. 33//5 and second in rect./killa No. 33//03 in Northern-Eastern corner. The revision petition No. 102/2026 is hereby rejected by partially accepting the revision petition 107/2026. The decision of the Divisional Canal Officer Hisar dated 04.11.2025 is modified upto the above extent.”

¶44

In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioners have filed the instant civil writ petition before this Court for seeking relief(s), as noticed hereinabove.

¶45

I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and have perused the paperbook with his able assistance.

¶46

A perusal of impugned orders would show that the canal authorities have ordered restoration of demolished watercourse by taking into consideration following facts :-

¶47

(i) the site of watercourse was inspected by SDCO, Barwala on 15.07.2025 and he found as a matter of fact that the

¶48

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

CWP-11452-2026 (O/M)

¶50

-62026:PHHC:058508

¶51

watercourse was running from east to west side on the northern side of khasra No. 33/4-5 ;

¶52

(ii) it has also been found as a matter of fact that there was clear evidence of dismantling of watercourse at the site ; and

¶53

(iii) the watercourse, regarding which restoration is being sought, has been found to be sanctioned in warabandi of 25.04.2025.

¶54

5.1 Considering the aforementioned facts, learned SDCO came to the conclusion that the watercourse falls in the category of temporary watercourse, in terms of Section 2(12) of 1974 Act and accordingly, he ordered restoration thereof.

¶55

5.2 The aforesaid findings returned by learned SDCO have been further affirmed by learned DCO. Even learned SCO has affirmed the order passed by learned SDCO; however, he has modified the order to the extent that an underground pipeline about 3 feet below the ground level be embedded in Rect.//Killa No. 33//4-5 (along northern line upto two killa length), at the cost of beneficiaries i.e. private respondents No. 5 to 7 and further that two hodies of 2.5 ft x 2.5 ft. size having 3.5 ft. depth be provided; firstly, in the northern eastern corner of Killa No. 33//5 and secondly in Rect.//Killa No. 33//03 (on northern eastern corner).

¶56

5.3 Before this Court, learned counsel for petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the orders passed by canal authorities below. Learned counsel for petitioners has also been unable to show as to what prejudice has been caused to the petitioners from the impugned orders.

¶57

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

CWP-11452-2026 (O/M)

¶59

-72026:PHHC:058508

¶60

At this stage, only one argument has been raised by learned counsel for petitioners that the canal authorities have no jurisdiction to direct installation of underground pipeline at the site.

¶61

6.1 I have considered the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of petitioners; however, I find no merit in the same. Once, the canal authorities have the jurisdiction in terms of Section 24 of 1974 Act to direct restoration of dismantled watercourse, then in the attending circumstances if the authorities come to the conclusion that in order to do substantial justice to both parties, the issue can be resolved by providing watercourse through underground pipeline, no fault can be found with the same.

¶62