Dismissed

Sukhdev Singh and Others v. Superintending Canal Officer and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Mar 2026LPA/155/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed two Letters Patent Appeals challenging Writ Petitions regarding the sanction of Warabandi. The court held that appellants participated in prior proceedings, thus waiving their opposition, and that interfering with the sanctioned watercourse restoration would negatively affect other shareholders. Appeals were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 150/2025 and 155/2025 were dismissed, and the impugned orders of the Single Judge were confirmed.

Sukhdev Singh and Others Vs Superintending… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

�� 

��

�� ! ��"�!�#

�$%&�'(��&)�*�'�+��,��,��-

.�/��0�.��.

...Appellants

Versus

�.��.

...Respondents

�� ! ��"�!�#

.�/��0�.��.

...Appellants

Versus

�.��.

...Respondents

��+��1��,��.��.��.��.�� 1��,��.��0�/�.�.��

¶17

Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate and Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶18

Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chandan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4 in both cases.

¶19

¶20

��.��.��.��2��,�"��#

¶21

By this order, we propose to disposed of LPA1502025 and LPA1552025 by a common order as the issue involved therein is inter* connected and parties to the �� are also common.

¶22

In LPA1502025, the challenge is to the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP234762924, by

¶23

HARISH KUMAR 2026.03.09 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶24

��"�!�#�! "�# ��"�!�#

¶25

which the writ petition filed by the appellants raising a grievance with regard to grant of benefit qua sanction of Warabandi by the Superintending Canal Engineer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Water Resources Department, Ludhiana, vide order dated 05.07.2024, has been dismissed.

¶26

2.1 In another Letters Patent Appeal (LPA1552025), the challenge raised is to the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP234552024, by which the writ petition filed by the appellants for setting aside the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circule, Ludhiana, with regard to the sanction of Warabandi under Section 68 (3) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1973, has been rejected.

¶27

The challenge was raised by the appellants to the Warabandi order dated 12.07.2022 passed by the Deputy Collector, Bhatinda Canal Division, Bathinda, wherein, certain benefits qua Warabandi were granted to the respondents, on the ground that the said order was passed at the back of the appellants and therefore, the same cannot be made binding upon the appellants.

¶28

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

¶29

A finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge that when the Warabandi was being sanctioned, due opportunity was given to the appellants to raise objections, but as the appellants failed to raise any objection, no reason arises for setting aside the order dated 12.07.2022. The said finding is being disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that no notices qua proceedings before authority

¶30

HARISH KUMAR 2026.03.09 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶31

��"�!�#�! "�# ��"�!�#

¶32

concerned were given to them though the same has been wrongly recorded in the order dated 12.07.2022.

¶33

In order to ascertain the factual aspect qua the said argument, though a disputed question of fact has been raised by the appellants in appeal, the record is produced by Mr. Balwinder Singh, Ziledar and seen by the Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State so as to ascertain said factual aspect qua nonissuance of notices, which is also shown to appellant No.3Angrej Singh, who is present in Court. The signatures of appellant No.1 are duly mentioned in the proceedings dated 22.05.2022, which took place before passing of the order dated 12.07.2022, which clearly shows that the appellants had duly participated in the proceedings before Deputy Collector, whereby Warabandi was sanctioned on 12.07.2022. That being so, keeping in view the above, it clearly shows that the appellants tried to mislead this Court by raising a false plea which is proven to be factually incorrect. Hence, once Warabandi has been sanctioned by appropriate authority vide order dated 12.07.2022 and that too, under appropriate provisions of law and the same is operational, therefore, no grievance can be allowed to be raised at this stage, especially when it has already come on record that the said Warabandi was prepared with due knowledge of the appellants whence they never raised any objection.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to dispute the said factual position as well as the record which has been produced before this Court.

¶35

Now coming on to the second aspect with regard to

¶36

HARISH KUMAR 2026.03.09 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶37

��"�!�#�! "3# ��"�!�#

¶38

the challenge to the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge upholding order passed by the Superintending Canal Engineer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Water Resources Department, Ludhiana, learned counsel for the appellants argues that though Warabandi has been sanctioned vide order dated 12.07.2022 but keeping in view the other facts, the grant of benefit of restoration of the �� watercourse is incorrect.

¶39

It may be noticed that a finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge qua said aspect that in case, the restoration of the watercourse is stayed, then there are other shareholders, who fall next in line, who are also to be affected which will be against policy of Government qua better irrigation, which fact has gone unrebutted at the hands of the appellants. Further, the Warabandi was finalized, accordingly restoration of watercourse as sanctioned vide order dated 12.07.2022 has been ordered vide order dated 05.07.2024 by Superintending Canal Officer, which order has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge has not been shown to be perverse either on facts or on law that once, a Warabandi has been sanctioned and the same has been taken into account for fixing the Nakas, the same has to operate.

¶40

Further, finding which has been recorded by the learned Single Judge that in case, the plea of the appellants is accepted, it will other shareholders also, has also gone unrebutted. 10. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, coupled with the fact that even before this Court, appellants were not truthful and raised factually incorrect plea, no ground is made for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present appeals are dismissed.

¶41

HARISH KUMAR 2026.03.09 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶42

��"�!�#�! "�# ��"�!�#

¶43

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶44

Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.

¶45

"��.��.��.��# ��

¶46

"�0�/�.�.��# �$4)5��2�� �� Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶47

HARISH KUMAR 2026.03.09 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Sukhdev Singh and Others v. Superintending Canal Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Singh and Others v. Superintending Canal Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Others Vs Madan Lal and Another

Raghavinder Dass and Another Vs Union of India and Others

Khushalbir Singh @ Chittu Vs State of Punjab

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Harbir Kaur Bhatia and Another

Sukhdev Singh and Others Vs Superintending Canal Officer and Others

Central Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs Suresh Kumar