Allowed¶12

Ashok and Ors. v. Chief Canal Officer and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2026CWP/4336/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

canal watercourse sanction and outlet transfer; chak of outlet R.D 26500-R Bhutian Minor versus existing outlet R.D 26000-R Bhutian Minor; estoppel and consistency of conduct of irrigation-water claimant; contribution of land towards lined watercourse; judicial restraint vis-a-vis Canal Authorities' decisions under Article 226 of the Constitution; Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; CWP-4336-2023 (O&M); decided 03.07.2026 by Pankaj Jain J.; writ petition allowed and appellate order of Chief Canal Officer dated 12.01.2023 set aside.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 12.01.2023 of the Appellate Authority set aside; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶12

Ashok and Ors. Vs Chief Canal Officer and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; order dated 12.01.2023 of the Appellate Authority set aside; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.4, having opted not to contribute land to the newly sanctioned watercourse from outlet No.26500-R and remaining satisfied with irrigation from outlet No.26000-R, can nevertheless claim water from outlet No.26500-R.

¶29

Court's answer

A party who, knowing that a newly sanctioned watercourse would run adjacent to his land, did not contribute even a single inch of land to its creation and was satisfied with irrigation from the existing outlet, is estopped from taking a stand totally opposite to his conduct and cannot claim water from the new outlet; he cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The order passed by the Appellate Authority allowing respondent No.4 to draw water from outlet No.26500-R is not sustainable and is set aside.

¶11

Key takeaways

As the Canal Authorities are aware of the situation on the spot, writ courts should seldom interfere with their decisions regarding outlets and irrigation.obiter¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Pankaj Jain, J., oral), CWP-4336-2023 (O&M), decided 03.07.2026: Ashok and others petitioned against the order dated 12.01.2023 of the Chief Canal Officer, Irrigation & Water Resources Department, Haryana (Appellate Authority), which had accepted respondent No.4's appeal, set aside the decision of the Superintending Canal Officer, Y.W.S. Circle, Rohtak, and transferred 5/5 acres of respondent No.4 from the chak of outlet R.D 26000-R Bhutian Minor to the chak of the newly created outlet R.D 26500-R Bhutian Minor. Respondent No.4 had admittedly been irrigating from outlet No.26000-R, had contributed no land to the new watercourse although he knew it would run adjacent to his fields. Held: such a respondent is estopped from claiming water from the outlet he declined to fund and cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath; the appellate order was unsustainable and was set aside; the writ petition was allowed. The Court endorsed (Sham Sunder, 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 35; Mohinder Singh, 2012(67) RCR (Civil) 760) the position that writ courts should seldom interfere with canal authorities' outlet decisions absent patent illegality or arbitrariness (Article 226 of the Constitution); counsel for respondent No.4 had invoked Baljit Singh, CWP No.7250 of 2000 (decided 06.08.2024).

¶1

CWP-4336-2023 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

238

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CWP-4336-2023 (O&M) Date of decision : 03.07.2026

ASHOK AND ORS

....Petitioners

Versus

CHIEF CANAL OFFICER AND ORS

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶12

Present : Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Abhimanyu Antil, DAG, Haryana.

¶14

Mr. Lokendra Singh, Advocate and Mr. Arvind K. Bangar, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶15

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Instant writ petition is directed against order dated 12.01.2023 passed by Chief Canal Officer, Irrigation & Water Resources Department, Haryana whereby the Appellate Authority accepted the appeal filed by the respondent No.4 and allowed him to irrigate his land through outlet R.D 26500-R Bhutian Minor holding that the lined watercourse of outlet R.D 26500-R Bhutian Minor runs just adjacent to the field of appellant whereas the land of the appellant is 1.5 Killa length away from the lined watercourse of existing outlet R.D 26000-R Bhutian Minor.

¶17

DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-4336-2023 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

From the records, it is discernible that respondent No.4 was admittedly getting water from outlet No.26000-R. The fields of the parties are adjacent to each other. Petitioners filed an application seeking creation of watercourse at outlet No.26500-R. The watercourse was sanctioned. Petitioners claim that at the time of sanctioning of watercourse from outlet No.26500-R, respondent No.4 did not contribute even a single inch of land and was satisfied with the source of irrigation coming from outlet No.26000R. Once the outlet 26500-R has been carved out from the land belonging to the petitioners, respondent No.4 now cannot be allowed to seek water from outlet No.26500-R.

¶21

The Appellate Authority while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent No.4 observed as under:

¶22

“From the close perusal of the site sketch and over all view of the case, it is observed that the demand of the appellant is genuine because he can irrigate his land properly through outlet R.D 26500-R Bhutian Minor as the lined watercourse of outlet R.D 26500-R Bhutian Minor is passing through just adjacent to the filed of the appellant. Whereas, the land of the appellant is 1.5 Killa length away from the lined watercourse of existing outlet R.D 26000-R Bhutian Minor. The appeal filed by the appellant is accepted because the objection of the respondent has not eight and the decisions given by Superintending Canal Officer Y.W.S. Circle, Rohtak is set aside and 5/5 acres area of the appellant is transferred from outlet R.D 26000-R Bhutian Minor to the chak of outlet R.D 26500-R Bhutian Minor subject to the condition that the cost of the adjustment of outlets if any will be borne by the appellant.”

¶23

DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CWP-4336-2023 (O&M)

¶25

¶26

Counsel for respondent No.4 while defending the order passed by the Appellate Authority submits that the Canal Authorities being the best judge w.r.t. the situation at the spot, the order is not subject to judicial review. Reliance is being placed upon judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court titled as Baljit Singh vs. Chief Canal Officer, Haryana and others – CWP No.7250 of 2000 decided on 06.08.2024.

¶27

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case.

¶28

It is not in dispute that while the petitioners sought sanction of a new watercourse from outlet No.26500-R, respondent No.4 knew that the same shall pass just adjacent to his land. It is not in dispute that respondent No.4 did not contribute even a single inch of land to the creation of new watercourse. The question that falls for adjudication of this Court is :

¶29

“Whether respondent No.4 can be allowed to take a somersault and claim water from outlet No.26500-R once he opted not to contribute to the watercourse and was satisfied with the source of irrigation coming from outlet No.26000-R?”

¶30

There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sham Sunder vs.

¶31

DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CWP-4336-2023 (O&M)

¶33

¶34

Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur, 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 35

¶35

wherein it was observed as under:

¶36

“5. Even otherwise, we find no ground to interfere. The Canal Authorities are the best judges for the situation at the spot. If on a consideration of the matter it has been found that the fields of the petitioner can be properly irrigated from the existing outlet, this court cannot interfere in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution unless it is shown that the order is patently illegal and arbitrary. Nothing of the sort has been pointed out…”

¶37

The same view has been reiterated by another Division Bench

¶38

of this Court in the case of Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2012(67) RCR (Civil) 760 , observing as under:

¶39

“…We are of the opinion that the matter of transfer of an area from one outlet to another by the canal authorities should be seldom interfered with in the writ jurisdiction, particularly when the canal authorities had taken the decision after hearing the interested parties and in the interest of better irrigation, and also considering that while making such transfer, the maximum land will be properly irrigated…”

¶40

Trite it is that the Canal Authorities being aware of the situation on the spot, the writ courts should not seldom interfere.

¶41

In the present case, once it is admitted that respondent No.4 did not contribute to the newly carved out watercourse knowing well that the same shall run adjacent to his land, he is estopped from taking stand totally opposite to his conduct. He cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the

¶42

DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

CWP-4336-2023 (O&M)

¶44

¶45

same breath. This is precisely what the Appellate Authority has allowed while accepting appeal filed by respondent No.4.

¶46