IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 LPA-2955-2024 (O&M) Decided on : 23.03.2026 RAM KUMAR ...Appellant Versus SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Ms. Ishani Goyal, Advocate for Ms. Deepika, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Yatin Bunger, AAG, Punjab. Mr. SPS Tinna, Advocate for Ms. Geeta Dahiya, Advocate for respondent No. 4. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the order dated 19.06.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division, Abohar (herein after referred to as ‘DCO’) under Section 68 (5) of Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, has been upheld. 2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the facts which were already on record including the fact that another dickey situated on the land in question, had only been closed to prevent wastage of water, could not be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, therefore, the present appeal may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further, with liberty to the appellant to file a review before the learned Single Judge. RIYA 2026.03.25 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 LPA-2955-2024 (O&M) 3. Ordered accordingly. 4. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE ( VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE 23.03.2026 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RIYA 2026.03.25 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document