Rajesh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 13.10.2016 passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana which stands affirmed vide order dated 07.02.2017 passed by appellate authority dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner as time barred.

¶19

The dispute between the parties with respect to watercourse has attained perennial nature. Earlier also, the parties came before this Court in CWP No26878 of 2015. The same was disposed off vide order dated 02.06.2016 observing as under:-

¶20

“xx xx xx Perusal of record reveals that petitioner has demolished the watercourse which was going upto the land of the private respondents. Concurrent findings have been recorded by all the revenue authorities that watercourse has been demolished by the petitioner. The Sub

¶21

DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CWP-11689-2018

¶23

2

¶24

Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana W/S Sub Division, Narwana has ordered the restoration of watercourse for one year on temporary basis.

¶25

The private respondent will be entitled to use the watercourse for one year, thereafter, the petitioner will be at liberty to demolish the watercourse. In the meantime, the private respondent can file appropriate application for permanent watercourse. Since the private respondent will be using the land of the petitioner for one year, he will pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the petitioner by way of bank draft. In case, the petitioner does not accept the amount then the private respondent shall deposit the same with respondent No. 4 - Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Shudkan Water Service Sub Division, Narwana. Respondent no.4 shall inform the petitioner about the deposit. It is made clear that firstly the private respondent must send the bank draft to the petitioner by registered post. The private respondent can do the same at his own level. If, the petitioner does not accept the same, the private respondents shall deposit the same with respondent no.4. The Irrigation Department is directed to restore the watercourse. The period of one year shall commence from 03.06.2016.

¶26

Disposed of in the above terms.”

¶27

Pursuant to this order, the respondent filed application seeking sanctioning of permanent watercourse. Vide impugned order dated 13.10.2016, Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana sanctioned the watercourse holding that the applicants are receiving water for irrigation from point A-B for last many years and there is no other feasible watercourse to irrigate the area except watercourse A-B which is a sanctioned watercourse under Section 18(2) of Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974.

¶28

The petitioner preferred appeal thereagainst alongwith application seeking condonation of delay. The same has been dismissed without passing any order. By way of communication dated DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CWP-11689-2018

¶30

3

¶31

07.02.2017, the petitioner has been informed that his appeal has been dismissed as time barred.

¶32

Counsel for the petitioner submits that by sanctioning watercourse from A to B, the land of the petitioner stands bifurcated. More feasible watercourse is available from point C to the land of the respondent, yet the authorities have not considered the same.

¶33

Per contra , Mr. Lohan would submit that the appeal filed after delay has been rightly rejected by the authorities. He submits that the plea with respect to alternate watercourse from point C is being raised for the first time before this Court. The watercourse C-E is not the watercourse left by the consolidation department. Some part of watercourse C-D is part of reserved watercourse from point C to C1 which does not touch the holding of respondent No.4.

¶34

From bare perusal of the record, it is evident that while passing the impugned order dated 13.10.2016, Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana has not considered feasibility of any other watercourse including that running from C to D. Though, Mr. Lohan claims that the level at point C is lower than the land of the private respondent, but no such reason has been recorded by the authorities while passing impugned order. The Deputy Commissioner has simply concluded that there is no feasible watercourse. He has not assigned any reason behind this finding.

¶35

In view thereof, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority as well as by the Divisional Canal Officer dated 13.10.2016 cannot be sustained. The same are hereby set aside. Divisional Canal Office shall decide the matter afresh in

¶36

DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11689-2018

4

accordance with law.