IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :17.02.2026 BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS …….PETITIONERS Versus DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER, ABOHAR CANAL DIVISION, ABOHAR AND OTHERS ..…RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Surinder Pal Singh Tinna, Advocate with Ms. Geeta Dahiya, Advocate and Ms. Lalita, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

***

HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL]

Prayer in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division, Abohar, District Fazilka.

2. Briefly, the present petitioners filed an application dated 03.07.2025 before the concerned Canal Authorities seeking restoration of a water course, which was left at the time of consolidation on the plea that the petitioners are the share-holders of outlet No. 61523/R Daulatpura Minor, which was irrigating their fields, however, the same was in a dilapidated condition and even its width was less, therefore, they are not getting proper irrigation.

3. On receipt of the aforesaid application, the matter was got inquired from the Field Staff. The concerned Ziledar inspected the spot and after getting the site plan prepared, he submitted a report recommending restoration of the water course, which was left at the time of consolidation, and the matter was placed before the learned Sub Divisional Canal Officer.

4. The learned learned Sub Divisional Canal Officer vide order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-5), ordered restoration of the water course, which was left at the time of consolidation.

5. Feeling aggrieved, against the aforesaid order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Sub Divisional Canal Officer, respondent No.4 to 6 preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division, Abohar, District Fazilka, which was allowed vide order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-7) wherein the order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Sub-

Divisional Canal Officer was set aside.

6. In the aforementioned circumstances, present petition has been filed before this Court, for seeking relief(s) as noted hereinabove.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Divisional Canal Officer has erred in law and facts in passing the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-7). While referring to the site plan (Annexure P-8), it is contended that the water course which was left at the time of consolidation in the village, is depicted at point A-B-C and the water course which is running from point A-D-E is the one from which the petitioners were getting irrigation, however, on account of its dilapidated condition and due to short width of the said watercourse, the area of the petitioners was not being irrigated properly. Therefore, the water course left at the time of consolidation as depicted at point A-B-C be restored. It is further submitted that the area of the petitioners can get better irrigation from the water course A-B-C (which was left during the consolidation operation), as there would be lesser turns. It is next submitted that the learned Divisional Canal Officer has not taken into consideration the report submitted by the Ziledar, who had recommended the restoration of the water course.

8. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Divisional Canal Officer and for maintaining the order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Sub Divisional Canal Officer.

9. Heard.

10. In the present case, the petitioners had submitted an application for restoration of the water course A-B-C as depicted in site plan (Annexure P-8) by making the following averments:-

“Sir, It is submitted that we are the shareholders of the above mentioned Outlet. An application