IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CWP-1893-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 28.01.2025 Ranjeet Singh ….Petitioner Versus Superintending Canal Officer, Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Gursewak Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Upasana Dhawan, AAG, Haryana.

***

HARSH BUNGER, J. (Oral)

Petitioner (Ranjeet Singh) has filed the instant Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside order dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Saraswat Water Services Sub Division, Kaithal, District Kaithal, Haryana, whereby, the prayer of the private respondents seeking restoration of the demolished water course in the chak of outlet RD 31735-L was allowed.

1.1 A further prayer has been made for setting aside of orders dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Kaithal and dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services Circle, Kaithal, District Kaithal, Haryana, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner have been dismissed.

2. Briefly, respondent No.4 -Seetal Singh approached the Canal Authorities with a prayer that he is shareholder of outlet RD 31735-L Keorak Minor and the watercourse, through which he was irrigating his land, has been dismantled by the present petitioner- Ranjit Singh and resultantly, his canal irrigation has been stopped at site. Accordingly, prayer was made for restoration of the water course.

2.1 It transpires that upon receipt of the said application by respondent No.4- Seetal Singh, a khaka plan was prepared by the concerned Zilledar/ Patwari. The site of the dismantled watercourse was inspected by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer on 30.07.2024 in the presence of both the parties and it was found that the watercourse A-B as marked in the khaka plan running along the northern side of killa No.9 of Rectangle No.95 had been dismantled.

2.2 Therefore, the statements of the parties were recorded and the Sub Divisional Canal Officer vide order dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure P-4)

ordered restoration of the watercourse for a period of 6 months.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved against order dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure P-4), respondent No.4- Seetal Singh preferred an appeal claiming that the watercourse in question has been wrongly ordered to be restored temporarily for six months, whereas the said watercourse had been running for last more than twenty years, therefore, the same would fall in the category of a permanent watercourse under Section 2 (15) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (in short ‘1974 Act’).

2.4 Considering the aforesaid appeal, the learned Divisional Canal Officer, Kaithal vide order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) held that the watercourse in dispute was of temporary type and accordingly he ordered restoration of the said watercourse for one year.

2.5 Still aggrieved, respondents No.4 and 5 preferred a Revenue Appeal No.40 of 2024. On the other hand, the petitioner also preferred an Appeal No.41 of 2024 before the Superintending Canal Officer, Kaithal. Both the aforesaid appeals came to be decided by the learned Superintending Canal Officer vide a common order dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure P-6) ordering restoration of the demolished watercourse for unlimited period instead of one year.

3. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition before this Court for the reliefs as noticed above.

4. Heard.

5. In the present case, there is no dispute as regards the demolition of the watercourse is concerned. The Sub Divisional Canal Officer ordered restoration of the watercourse for a period of six months by treating the watercourse in question as a temporary watercourse. The Divisional Canal Officer also considered the watercourse as a temporary watercourse and ordered restoration for a period of one year. How