[222] [1] Raj Kumar Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Canal Colony, Ferozepur and others [2] Raj Kishan and another Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Canal Colony, Ferozepur and others Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] 21.04.2016 (Annexure P 27.04.2015 course was ordered to be restored motion on 07.09.2016 passed the following order: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-18560 Date of Decision : Raj Kumar Versus Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Canal Colony, Ferozepur and others CWP-25349 Raj Kishan and another Versus Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Canal Colony, Ferozepur and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Surinder Pal Singh Tinna, in CWP-18560-2016. None for the petitioners in CWP Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Addl. AG, Punjab. None for respondent No.3. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The present writ petitions are directed against orders dated 21.04.2016 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.1 and that dated 27.04.2015 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2, whereby water course was ordered to be restored. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 07.09.2016 passed the following order: “ Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the site plan (Annexure P-1) to contend inter alia that since the watercourse IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 18560-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.07.2026 …Petitioner Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Canal Colony, Ferozepur and others ….Respondents 25349-2016 (O&M) …Petitioner Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Canal Colony, Ferozepur and others ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Surinder Pal Singh Tinna, Advocate for the petitioner CWP-25349-2016. Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Addl. AG, Punjab. The present writ petitions are directed against orders dated 9) passed by respondent No.1 and that dated passed by respondent No.2, whereby water his Court while issuing notice of motion on 07.09.2016 passed the following order:- Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the site 1) to contend inter alia that since the watercourse The present writ petitions are directed against orders dated 9) passed by respondent No.1 and that dated passed by respondent No.2, whereby water his Court while issuing notice of Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the site 1) to contend inter alia that since the watercourse RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.27 11:19 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-18560-2016 (O&M) & -2- CWP-25349-2016 (O&M) AB was, as a matter of fact, never sanctioned by any competent authority nor it has acquired the status of a watercourse by prescription, respondent canal authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction, while ordering restoration thereof. In this regard, he places reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Yadvinder Singh Vs. Superintending Canal Officer and others, decided on 26.02.2004. Notice of motion for 29.11.2016. At this stage, Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.3 to 5. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Addl. AG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner to supply requisite number of copies of the writ petition to the learned counsel for the respondents within two days. Learned counsel for the respondents seek time to get instructions and also to file their respective written statement. In the meantime, parties are directed to maintain status regarding watercourse AB, as it exists today.” [2] Counsel for respondent No.3 on 01.05.2024 made the following statement:- “ Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 (Vikas Kumar) has submitted that he has already sold the land to one Jamuna Bai and thus he is no more interested in pursuing this case.” [3] On being asked, counsel for the State, on instructions from Shri Rahul Sharma, Ziledar, Abohar, submits that the water course has not been restored till today. [4] For last 10 years, the impugned orders could not be executed. Since 2013, land which was owned by respondent No.3 has remained RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.27 11:19 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-18560-2016 (O&M) & -3- CWP-25349-2016 (O&M) without getting irrigated by the proposed watercourse AB. After 01.05.2024 when respondent No.3 through his counsel stated that he is no more interested in pursuing the case as he has sold the land, nobody has come as to contest the lis as his transferee. [5] In view thereof, this Court finds that order dated 07.09.2016 is made absolute. [6] The writ petitions are disposed off accordingly. [7] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. [8] Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 23.07.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.27 11:19 I agree to specified portions of this document