128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 18.05.2026 PYARE LAL ........Appellant VERSUS SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICE AND OTHERS ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. K.B Raheja, Advocate for the appellant.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the learned Single judge in CWP No.38894 of 2025 for setting aside the order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-8) passed by the respondent No.1 whereby watercourse has been restored for unlimited period.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-8) passed by the respondent No.1, is incorrect as, there was no valid watercourse in existence hence, the restoration of the same so as to help the private respondents to irrigate their land, is incorrect.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record of the case.

4. It is a conceded fact that all the authorities concerned have come to a conclusion that there was a watercourse, which was in existence and has been demolished by the appellant and directions have been given for restoring the same.

5. It may be noticed that in the order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, it has already come on record that the said watercourse was in existence since the year 1992 and was also shown in the Warabandi. Once, it has already come on record that the watercourse was in existence and was shown in the Warabandi as far as back in the year 1991-1992, the same is to be treated as a permanent watercourse so as to allow the irrigation and anyone demolishing the same has rightly been directed to reconstruct the same.

6. In the present case, the argument that there was no valid watercourse, is totally incorrect and contrary to the findings recorded by the irrigation authorities, which has been upheld by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.03.2026. The said finding has gone unrebutted at the hands of the appellants.

7. The further argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the watercourse is running through the land of the appellant which is disturbing the peaceful enjoyment of his land hence, the same should not be allowed to continue therein.

8. It may be noticed that, once a watercourse was already running for the last more than 35 years, now raising a grievance that the same is causing prejudice, cannot be accepted at this belated stage. Even otherwise, a watercourse, which is running from last more than 03 decades and the same being treated as a permanent watercourse, has rightly been directed to be allowed to continue by the authorities concerned.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has replied upon the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court in CWP No.14014 of 2014 titled “Dara Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others” decided on 12.01.2017.

10. A perusal of the abovesaid judgment would reveal that the same only relates to the proposition that the “turn of watercourse” is not a ground for restoration of watercourse. However, in the present case, the watercourse was running for a period of 03 decades and was dismantled by the appellants, and later on restoration of which watercourse has been ordered hence, the judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

11. In the present case, a watercourse which was in existence for more than 3 decades, the restoration of which was ordered hence, even Paragraph No.11 of the judgment in Dara Singh’s case (supra) supports the said decision that a watercourse has to continue, which is already in continuance.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant further relies upon the judgement of the learned Single Judge in CWP No.13800 of 2015 titled “Karam Chand and another vs. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Canal Colony Ferozepur and others”, d