151 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 17.04.2026 Manoj Kumar and others ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :- Mr. Lokesh Godara, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Abhimanyu Antil, DAG Haryana.

-.- -.-

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in this 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 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Barwala (in short 'SDCO'); order dated 04.11.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar (in short 'DCO') and order dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Superintending Canal Officer, Hisar (in short 'SCO').

2. Briefly, respondents No. 5 to 7 herein filed an application before the canal authorities under Section 24 of Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (in short '1974 Act'), seeking restoration of watercourse in chak of outlet RD 22900-Left Badhawar Distributary.

2.1 Upon receipt of aforesaid application by canal authorities, the matter was got investigated through the concerned Ziledar, who submitted his report dated 16.06.2025, stating therein that the watercourse was earlier passing on the northern side of khasra No. 33//4-5 from east to west, which had been dismantled.

2.2 Petitioner No. 1 (Manoj Kumar) opposed the aforesaid claim of private respondents No. 5 to 7 on the plea that there was no watercourse in existence and that the alleged channel was a private channel of petitioners for their own exclusive use. It was also stated by petitioners that private respondents No. 5 to 7 had an alternate watercourse available for irrigation, which was laid during consolidation operation in the village.

2.3 It appears that learned SDCO concerned, upon consideration of the matter, directed restoration of watercourse, vide order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), the relevant extract of which reads as under :-

“DECISION: I have carefully heard the arguments of all the affected persons, who appeared before the court. The site has also been inspected by me on 15/07/2025 and found that watercourse on north side of field No. 33/4-5 running eastern to western side was existing at site before its dismantling and clear nishan of dismantled watercourse has been found. This watercourse was sanctioned in warabandi on 25/04/2025.

In view of aforementioned facts the undersigned reached at the conclusion this watercourse falls under category of temporary watercourse under section 2(12) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act 29 of 1974. Hence, the watercourse is liable to restore passing through north side of Field No. 33/4-5 eastern to western side. Accordingly, I order to restore this watercourse for one year. The respondent is directed to restore the watercourse within 15 days without further loss of time failing which the watercourse will be restored as per Act.

Decision be conveyed to all concerned as per rule.”

2.4 Feeling aggrieved against aforesaid order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), petitioner No. 1 (Manoj Kumar) preferred an appeal before learned DCO. Similarly, private respondents No. 5 to 7 also filed their separate appeal against aforesaid order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-1). Both the aforesaid appeals came to be decided, vide a common order dated 04.11.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned DCO, by observing as under :-

“Decision:- I have examined the record in the case file, i.e. nakal khaka plan and warabandi, report of Zilledar, the decision dated 16.07.2025 given by SDCO/Barwala W/S Sub Division, Barwala, and the appeals of appellants filed by them. As per the khaka plan, the watercourse “AB” is showing in field no. 33//4-5 on the northern side, east to west, which was demolished by the respondents and taking/delivery point is sanctioned at 27//22x33//3. It is also evident that SDCO/Barwala W/S