IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7640-2013(O&M)

Date of decision : 11.03.2025 BALJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER …Petitioners Versus SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER, I.B. CIRCLE, PATIALA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. G.S. Bains, Advocate for Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Garg, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 6.

HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL]

Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Divisional Canal Officer, Sangrur and order dated 29.11.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala.

2. Briefly, respondents No.3 and 4, herein filed an application dated 05.11.2007 (Annexure P-1) before the Divisional Canal Officer, alleging that they were the shareholders of Outlet No.5884/L minor 8, Rajwaha Sheron, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur and one Jeet Singh son of Sher Singh alongwith petitioner No.2-Bant Singh, had demolished their watercourse.

2.1 It appears that respondent No.2, vide order dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure P-2) ordered restoration of the watercourse on the eastern boundary of Killa no.69//5-6/1.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved against the afore-said order dated 28.02.2011(Annexure P-2), the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, which was dismissed vide order dated

29.11.2012 (Annexure P-4).

2.3 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners before this Court, seeking relief/s, as noticed here-in-above.

3. The primary contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that while ordering restoration of the watercourse, neither the Divisional Canal Officer nor the Superintending Canal Officer returned any finding as to whether the watercourse in question, was either a sanctioned one or by way of prescription or by way of an agreement.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 6 has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners by submitting that since the watercourse in question, was demolished by the petitioners and others, therefore, the Canal authorities have rightly ordered restoration of the same and no interference was required to be made in the impugned orders. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the writ petition has been made

5. Heard.

6. Here, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Jagar Singh vs Superintending Canal Officer and others, 1972 PLJ 147. The relevant observations there, read as under :-

“The view we have taken on the matter finds support from the decision of the Lahore High Court in Hukman v. Emperor, AIR 1921 Lahore 327. This decision has held the field and reference need only bemade to Moola Singh v. Surendra Singh, AIR 1960 Allahabad 656, wherein a large number of decisions taking the same view have been collated. It is true that the Lahore decision dealt with the provisions of Section 70, but broadly speaking the ambit of that section and section 30FF is pare material. For instance, section 70(1) Talks of alteration, enlargement or obstruction whereas section 30FF(1) also talks of alteration, enlargement, and obstruction. Section 70 fell for interpretation as early as 1921 in the Lahore High Court and it was ruled that it only contemplates three types of watercourses, that is, -

(a)sanctioned by law;

(b)sanctioned by agreement between the parties; and (c)which have been prescribed by way of easement.

It was also held that if any person takes water through another man’s land, the other man has the right to stop the flow of water through his land thereby committing no offence within the meaning of section 70. It is only when water is stopped in the case of watercourse of the three t