Raghuvir Singh vs The Sub Divsional Canal Officer, Panjuana And Others

113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA-1561-2026 (O&M)
RAGHUVIR SINGH
...Appellant
Versus
THE SUB DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER, PANJUANA
AND OTHERS
…Respondents
Judgment Judgment Judgment Whether only the
Reserved on Pronounced on Uploaded on operative part of
the judgment is
pronounced
Whether the full
judgment is
pronounced
20/08/2026 31/08/2026 05/09/2026 No Yes
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA
Present : Mr. Raj Kumar Bhatia, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. AG., Haryana.
Mr. Shailender Singh Momi, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
This intra-court appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters
Patent has been filed challenging judgment dated 31.01.2016 passed by the
PRIYANKA
2026.09.05 13:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-1561-2026 (O&M) -2-
learned Single Judge, whereby a writ petition preferred by the appellant
challenging order dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-8) passed by the
Superintending Canal Officer, Sirsa has been dismissed and the
demolished water course has been ordered to be restored.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the canal
authorities erred in directing restoration of the water course without
conclusive proof of the existence of a sanctioned water course and a report
by the field staff in itself cannot constitute a sufficient basis for passing the
order of restoration. It is his argument that the learned Single Judge has
failed to accord due weightage to the revenue records and other documents
produced by the appellant by way of a miscellaneous application.
3. Per contra, counsel for private respondent No.4, has supported
the judgment under appeal. He asserts that concurrent findings have been
recorded by the competent canal authorities on the basis of the record as well
as the inquiry conducted by the field staff. It is his case that the existence of
the watercourse stood duly established and once it was found that it has been
demolished, the canal authorities were justified in ordering its restoration.
4. We have heard counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful
considerations to the arguments addressed by them as well as examined the
record.
5. In the present case, proceedings under the Haryana Canal and
Drainage Act, 1974 (for short “the 1974 Act”) were initiated by the private
respondent with a specific assertion that an existing watercourse had been
demolished by the appellant. Private respondent sought restoration of the
demolished watercourse. On receipt of the application, Sub-Divisional Canal
PRIYANKA
2026.09.05 13:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-1561-2026 (O&M) -3-
Officer caused an inquiry to be conducted through the field staff, whereupon
the concerned Ziledar submitted a report recommending restoration of the
watercourse. The application culminated in the passing of order dated
31.05.2022 (Annexure P-5) whereby the Sub-Divisional Officer (Canal)
ordered restoration of the watercourse. It is therefore evident that the
proceedings were based on the material collected by the field staff on the
basis of an inquiry conducted by them.
6. Although, appeal filed by the appellant was accepted by the
Superintending Canal Officer on 22.09.2022 (Annexure P-7), but in revision,
Superintending Canal Officer vide order dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-8)
recorded a categoric finding that the existence of the watercourse was shown
in the site plan prepared in 1983. Reliance had also been placed upon the
Naka
photographs to come to the conclusion that a " " was constructed near a
road and a culvert was also existing. The revisional authority found that a
dismantled watercourse existed along the road. A finding was recorded that
the land of the private respondent was being irrigated and there was no
alternate watercourse available for his land. The stand taken by the appellant
that he had purchased two kanals of land in the name of his wife vide sale
deed dated 08.08.2016 and there was no watercourse in existence, was found
to be belied on the basis of the documentary evidence. Furthermore,
Naka
warabandi decision dated 24.06.1991 indicated that a " " for taking
water had been sanctioned for private respondent. Warabandi has been held
to be the best proof of turn of canal water for irrigation by this Court in
PRIYANKA
2026.09.05 13:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-1561-2026 (O&M) -4-
Ajit Singh and others vs Superintending Canal Officer and others [2017
(1) RCR (Civil) 279 ] as well as in Brij Lal v. State of Punjab (1985 RRR
76). On the basis of the material brought on the record, canal authorities
found that the watercourse was running for the last two decades and the
same can be treated as a permanent watercourse. The report submitted
by the Ziledar also supported these findings. Reliance upon additional
documents by way of a miscellaneous application before the writ court or
upon an unverified chart/map which has been filed along with an application
for additional evidence in this appeal, will not advance the case of the
appellant in view of the definite finding of the canal authorities.
7. Statutory canal authorities are best equipped with technical field
expertise to evaluate alignments, flow of canal water, requirements of
individual shareholders, spot situations, as well as to determine whether a
watercourse existed at the spot and has been demolished. Their decisions are
not to be lightly interfered with by the High Court in exercise of
extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The only test to be applied is as to whether their decisions have been arrived
at after granting all the affected parties a sufficient opportunity of hearing
and decisions are aimed at ensuring better irrigation facilities. Reliance in
this regard can be placed upon the Division Benches of this Court in
Sham Sunder v. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur [2001(4)
RCR (Civil) 35] as well as Mohinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab
and others [2012(67) RCR(Civil) 760] . This Court does not find any
PRIYANKA
2026.09.05 13:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-1561-2026 (O&M) -5-
jurisdictional error, perversity, or irregularity in the findings recorded by the
canal authorities as upheld by the learned Single Judge.
8. Instant Letters Patent Appeal being bereft of merit is hereby
dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
[SUVIR SEHGAL]
JUDGE
August 31, 2026 [DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA]
gurpreet JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
PRIYANKA
2026.09.05 13:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document