JUDGMENT :

HARSH BUNGER, J. 

CM-1373-CWP-2026

1. This is an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for production of warabandi site plan of warabandi dated 28.10.2009 of outlet No. 12166/R, Rajwaha Boha as Annexure A-1.

2. For the reasons mentioned in application, same is allowed and warabandi site plan of warabandi dated 28.10.2009 (Annexure A-1) is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

3. Application is accordingly disposed of.

RA-CW-48-2026

1. This review application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114/151 CPC, seeking review of judgment dated 07.11.2025, passed by this Court in CWP-27109-2022.

2. The aforesaid review application has been filed by applicant in pursuance to order dated 12.01.2026, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-3803-2025. The relevant extract of which reads as under :-

“3. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the finding which has been recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court that there existed a water course is incorrect, the appellant intends to approach the learned Single Judge of this Court by way of filing a review petition hence, the present petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to the appellant to file review petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court.

4. Ordered accordingly.”

3. Before this Court, learned counsel for review-applicant has submitted that the finding recorded to the effect that there existed a watercourse is incorrect and in order to substantiate the said plea, the review-applicant has placed reliance upon a map of outlet No. 12166/R, Rajwaha Boha, which is attached with present review application as Annexure A-1.

4. I have carefully perused the site plan (Annexure A-1) and from a perusal of the same, it would be apparent that the watercourse has been duly depicted therein on southern side of Rect. No. 116, Killa No. 23, 22. When the aforesaid site plan (Annexure A-1) is seen in the context of site plan (Annexure P-7), which was prepared in the present case with regard to restoration of watercourse, it would be apparent that in the site plan (Annexure P-7) also; the demolished watercourse is shown on southern side of Rect. No. 116, Killa No. 23, 22, which further goes forward.

4.1 That apart, the canal authorities, while deciding the present case, have referred to warabandi dated 28.10.2009, approved by Deputy Collector, Lehal Division (IB), Patiala to hold that the said warabandi provides proof of existence of a watercourse on record. It needs no reiteration that the warabandi record is the best document for determination of existence of a watercourse. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon judgments rendered by this Court in Brij Lal Versus State of Punjab, 1985 Recent Revenue Reports 76 and Ram Kumar Versus Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra, 2017 (1), Law Herald, 292. It has also come on record by way of spot inspection that the watercourse beyond point 'E' continues to exist and even the concerned Ziledar had inspected the spot on 21.01.2021 and found that the watercourse had been demolished at the spot.

4.2 Even otherwise, while deciding the matter, this Court had duly taken notice of conduct of review-applicant inasmuch as that on 01.10.2025, the earlier counsel Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of petitioner (review-applicant), had stated that the petitioner would have no objection if the watercourse, which has been ordered to be restored, is laid by way of underground pipeline in front of shop constructed by review-applicant and that too at the expenses to be borne by review-applicant. However, subsequently on 07.11.2025, review-applicant changed her counsel and Shri Harvinder Singh Mann, Advocate appeared, who also stated that the petitioner would have no objection to restoration of watercourse by way of underground pipeline; however, review-applicant refused to bear the expenses for laying of undergr