131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 13.11.2025 Anil Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :- Mr. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Senior DAG Punjab.

-.- -.-

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant civil writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure P-6), passed by learned Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar (in short 'DCO') and order dated 24.01.2025 (Annexure P-7), passed by learned Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Circle, Ferozepur (in short 'SCO').

2. Briefly, respondent No. 3 (Vishal Kumar) approached canal authorities with the plea that his land was being irrigated from a watercourse 'ABCD' connected with outlet No. 79492-R Sukhchain Minor of village Sardarpura, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, however, same has been demolished from point 'B to C' and point 'C to D', accordingly, prayer was made for restoration of said watercourse. In order to support aforesaid contention, reliance was placed upon an order dated 12.07.2006, passed by Deputy Collector, Abohar, whereby he had fixed the turn of water (warabandi) on this watercourse (khal).

2.1 It appears that the aforesaid claim of respondent No. 3 was objected to by land owners through whose land the said watercourse was being claimed; on the plea that there was no watercourse 'ABCD' running at the spot nor there was sign of demolished khal and even the field staff had not recommended restoration of said watercourse.

2.2 Upon consideration of the matter as well as records, learned DCO himself inspected the spot on 13.07.2024 and it was found that the khal from point 'A' to point 'B' was not touching the land of respondent No. 3. It was further observed that since Khal at point 'C-D-E-F' was low from the level of land of respondent No. 3, therefore, it was not possible to irrigate land of respondent No. 3.

2.3 During the course of hearing of that petition, a consensus was arrived between respondent No. 3 and other adjoining land owners that there was a watercourse, which was carved out during consolidation operation in village in Rect. No. 119, Killa No. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, which was running at the spot. It was further agreed that as per old site plan attached to the case, the watercourse 'BC' has been shown demolished to some length and all parties agreed to restoration of the same, accordingly, learned DCO, vide order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure P-6), upon considering the consensus arrived at between the parties appearing before him; ordered restoration of watercourse 'CD' in Rect. No. 120, Killa No. 25 and watercourse 'BC' as per mutual consent.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved against aforesaid order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure P-6), petitioner preferred an appeal before learned SCO, which was dismissed, vide order dated 24.01.2025 (Annexure P-7).

3. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant civil writ petition before this Court seeking relief(s), as noticed hereinabove.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was owner of land comprised in Rect. No. 120, Killa No. 25 and there was no watercourse sanctioned in his land nor any watercourse was running through the said land. It was further submitted that the watercourse in question has been wrongly ordered to be restored on the basis of mutual consent by learned DCO, and that no notice or summons was ever issued to the petitioner. It was further claimed by the petitioner that on the land of respondent No. 3, the watercourse 'CDEF' was running at the spot, which is lined in between Rect. No. 128 Killa No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, accordingly, prayer for setting aside of order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure P-6) was made.

5. Heard.

6. As regards firs