Disposed¶35

Raj Kumar v. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2026CWP/18560/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: watercourse AB restoration; Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Canal Colony, Ferozepur; canal authorities' orders dated 27.04.2015 (Annexure P-8) and 21.04.2016 (Annexure P-9); status quo order dated 07.09.2016 made absolute; non-execution of restoration orders for 10 years; water course not restored till today; respondent No.3 Vikas Kumar sold land to Jamuna Bai and withdrew; no transferee to contest lis; Yadvinder Singh Vs. Superintending Canal Officer and others (DB, 26.02.2004); Rahul Sharma, Ziledar, Abohar; disposal of CWP (O&M) and pending miscellaneous applications.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 07.09.2016 (maintaining status quo regarding watercourse AB) made absolute; writ petitions and pending miscellaneous applications disposed of accordingly. ¶35

Raj Kumar Vs Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur & Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order dated 07.09.2016 (maintaining status quo regarding watercourse AB) made absolute; writ petitions and pending miscellaneous applications disposed of accordingly.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions challenging the canal authorities' orders restoring watercourse AB should succeed, the petitioners contending that watercourse AB was never sanctioned by a competent authority nor acquired the status of a watercourse by prescription.

¶18

Court's answer

The impugned restoration orders could not be executed for the last 10 years, and the water course has not been restored till today.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

After respondent No.3 sold the land and declared through his counsel on 01.05.2024 that he was no longer interested in pursuing the case, nobody came forward to contest the lis as his transferee.

¶32

Key takeaways

The Court found that the order dated 07.09.2016 (notice of motion with the interim direction to maintain status regarding watercourse AB) is made absolute.ratio¶33-34
The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.ratio¶35
All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Pankaj Jain, J.) — Two connected writ petitions (CWP-18560-2016 and CWP-25349-2016, O&M) challenged orders of the canal authorities — dated 27.04.2015 (Annexure P-8) by respondent No.2 and dated 21.04.2016 (Annexure P-9) by respondent No.1 — whereby a water course (watercourse AB) was ordered to be restored. On issuance of notice of motion on 07.09.2016 the Court had directed the parties to maintain status regarding watercourse AB; the petitioners had relied on Yadvinder Singh Vs. Superintending Canal Officer and others (Division Bench, decided 26.02.2004), contending that AB was never sanctioned by a competent authority nor acquired by prescription. The restoration orders remained unexecuted for about ten years; respondent No.3 (Vikas Kumar) sold the land to Jamuna Bai and withdrew (01.05.2024), with no transferee contesting the lis. The Court made the order dated 07.09.2016 absolute and disposed of the writ petitions and pending miscellaneous applications accordingly.

¶1

[222] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

[1] CWP-18560-2016 (O&M) Date of D ecision : 23.07.2026

¶3

Raj Kum a r …Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, C anal Colony, Ferozepur and o thers ….Respondents

¶6

[2] CWP-25 3 49-2016 (O&M)

¶7

Raj Kish a n and another …Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, C anal Colony, Ferozepur and o thers ….Respondents

¶10

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶11

Present: Mr. Surinder Pal Singh Tinn a , Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-18560-2016. None for the petitioners in C W P-25349-2016. Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Isha r , Addl. AG, Punjab. None for respondent No.3. ****

¶12

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶13

[1] The present writ petitions are directed against orders d a ted 21.04.20 1 6 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.1 and that d a ted 27.04.20 1 5 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2, whereby w a ter course was ordered to be restored. T h is Court while issuing notic e of motion o n 07.09.2016 passed the followi n g order:-

¶14

“ Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the site plan (Annexure P-1) to conten d inter alia that since the watercou r se

¶15

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.27 11:19 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶16

CWP-18560-2016 (O&M) & CWP-25349-2016 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

AB was, as a matter of fact, never sanctioned by any competent authority nor it has acquired the status of a watercourse by prescription, respondent canal authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction, while ordering restoration thereof. In this regard, he places reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Yadvinder Singh Vs. Superintending Canal Officer and others, decided on 26.02.2004.

¶19

Notice of motion for 29.11.2016.

¶20

At this stage, Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.3 to 5. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Addl. AG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner to supply requisite number of copies of the writ petition to the learned counsel for the respondents within two days.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents seek time to get instructions and also to file their respective written statement.

¶23

In the meantime, parties are directed to maintain status regarding watercourse AB, as it exists today.”

¶24

[2] Counsel for respondent No.3 on 01.05.2024 made the following

¶25

statement:-

¶26

“ Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 (Vikas Kumar) has submitted that he has already sold the land to one Jamuna Bai and thus he is no more interested in pursuing this case.”

¶27

[3] On being asked, counsel for the State, on instructions from Shri Rahul Sharma, Ziledar, Abohar, submits that the water course has not been restored till today.

¶28

[4] For last 10 years, the impugned orders could not be executed. Since 2013, land which was owned by respondent No.3 has remained

¶29

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.27 11:19 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶30

-3-

¶31

CWP-18560-2016 (O&M) & CWP-25349-2016 (O&M)

¶32

without getting irrigated by the proposed watercourse AB. After 01.05.2024 when respondent No.3 through his counsel stated that he is no more interested in pursuing the case as he has sold the land, nobody has come as to contest the lis as his transferee.

¶33

[5] In view thereof, this Court finds that order dated 07.09.2016 is

¶34

made absolute.

¶35