IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-30656-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision :29.10.2025 ARVINDER SINGH …Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER, FEROZEPUR CANAL CIRCLE, FEROZEPUR AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Judgepreet Singh Warring, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navneet Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

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 setting aside the order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-7)

passed by the learned Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur.

2. Briefly, respondent No.3-Sukhwinder Kaur is stated to have purchased land from the family of the petitioner. It is stated that the land pockets of the petitioner is in the form of strip of land of about 24-25 karam width and 118 karam length. Petitioner claims that the irrigation of the afore-said land pocket (in the form of strip) is possible only if the watercourse connects in the middle of his field. Petitioner further claims that respondent No.3/her family members created hurdle in the peaceful irrigation process of the petitioner, which constrained the petitioner to approach the canal authorities by way of an application dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P-3), wherein prayer was made for restraining respondent No.3 from creating any hinderance in the running of the watercourse.

2.1 It appears that on the afore-said application submitted by the petitioner, the Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar passed an order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-6) directing respondent No.3 not to tamper with the watercourse (AB) in any manner, the relevant extract whereof reads as under :-

“The case has been perused. In order to verify the status of the case, the spot inspection has been done on 10.10.2024. The spot site plan has been perused. The Khal/watercourse Point AB shown in the site plan is existing at the spot and the warabandi is approved on the same. On perusal of the documents attached with the case and after the spot inspection, the prayer/request of the applicant is accepted under section 70(4) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act 8 of 1873 Amended 23 of 1965 and the respondent party is hereby directed not to tamper with in any manner with the aforesaid Khal/watercourse Point AB in future. If the direction or the structure of the Khal/watercourse is changed by tampering with the same due to which, the warabandi of the applicant is affected then the departmental proceeding will be initiated against the respondent under section 70(4) of the said Act.”

2.2 Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the learned Superintending Canal Officer, who vide its order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) set aside the order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-6).

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

3. Heard.

4. In the present case, although vide order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), the Divisional Canal Officer had directed respondent No.3 not to tamper with the watercourse (AB) in any manner; however, on an appeal being filed by respondent No.3, the petitioner failed to prove the existence of watercourse (AB), accordingly, learned Superintending Canal Officer vide impugned order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) set aside the order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-6) by observing as under :-

“The appellant party, their counsel and the arguments of the respondent party have been considered at Ferozepur. On examination of the record and perusal of the documents come on file, it has been found that the Divisional Canal Officer has not examined the record attached with the case, at the time of deciding the case and therefore, passed the order dated 24.12.2024 without any reason. The Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division, showed that the khal/watercourse AB is approved under the