IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HARSHPREET SINGH @ HARSHDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER THE SUPERINTENDENT CANAL OFFICER, FEROZEPUR CORAM: Present : HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL] the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of quashing the impugned order dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure P the Divisional Canal Officer, Rajasthan as order dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure P Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur; whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and restoration of the water course has been ordered. 2. before the canal authorities seeking restoration of watercourse on Mogha IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH HARSHPREET SINGH @ HARSHDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER Versus THE SUPERINTENDENT CANAL OFFICER, FEROZEPUR CANAL CIRCLE, FEROZEPUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Mr. Rashi Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL] Prayer in the present petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of quashing the impugned order dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure P the Divisional Canal Officer, Rajasthan Canal Division, Ferozepur as well as order dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur; whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and restoration of the water s been ordered. Briefly, respondent no. 5-Satnam Singh filed an application before the canal authorities seeking restoration of watercourse on Mogha IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-33054-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.07.2025 HARSHPREET SINGH @ HARSHDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER …Petitioners THE SUPERINTENDENT CANAL OFFICER, CANAL CIRCLE, FEROZEPUR AND OTHERS …Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by Canal Division, Ferozepur as well 7) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur; whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and restoration of the water Satnam Singh filed an application before the canal authorities seeking restoration of watercourse on Mogha 6 2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.07.2025 Prayer in the present petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of , 6) passed by Canal Division, Ferozepur as well 7) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur; whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and restoration of the water Satnam Singh filed an application before the canal authorities seeking restoration of watercourse on Mogha GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh (Outlet) No. 4808/R, Rajbaha Nukerian, village Haleemawala; on the plea that the said watercourse has been demolished by the petitioner(s) and one Mohinder Singh. It was also pleaded that except the said watercourse, there is no other watercourse to irrigate his land and that their land would become barren. Accordingly, it was prayed that the spot be inspected and demolished watercourse be restored at the spot. 2.1 On receipt of the aforesaid application from respondent no. 5- Satnam Singh, the matter was got enquired into from concerned Ziledar, who inspected the spot on 02.07.2022 and statements of concerned shareholders were recorded, wherein the petitioners got recorded their statement that the area of respondent no. 5-Satnam Singh is being irrigated from watercourse (khal) A2-B2-C2-D1 and that no khal (watercourse) for respondent No. 5-Satnam Singh passes through their land and also that they have not demolished the watercourse. 2.2 The concerned Ziledar submitted his report that the watercourse (AB) has been demolished at the spot, as the watercourse is present ahead of and prior to the demolished watercourse and also that there was fresh evidence of demolition of watercourse at the spot. It was also reported that the turn of water (warabandi) of this Mogha (Outlet) has been fixed very old. 2.3 Thereafter, the report of Ziledar was placed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib; who after inspecting the spot on 06.10.2022; agreed with the report of Ziledar and recommended restoration of temporary watercourse at spot (AB and BB). Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Divisional Canal Officer, Ferozepur GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 2.4 The learned Divisional Canal Officer after considering matter, passed an order dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure P-6) directing restoration of watercourse AB, by observing as under:- “The investigation of case was conducted. Record was perused. Site plan seen and the reports of Ziledar Illaqa and Sub Divisional Officer Muktsar were perused. From the perusal of record, it is clear watercourse is duly sanctioned watercourse of Warabandi (water turn), and the applicant’s turn 19-20 of taking water 101-M/3-4 at Nukerian and giving water 65M/7/2-8/3 is sanctioned. Keeping in view cultivation of the applicant’s area under section 30 FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act 8 of 1873 amended 23 of 1965 and after the perusal of record, the watercourse AB is hereby restored. This decision was kept reserved. Both the parties be informed under rules regarding reserved decision. The order has been pronounced.” 2.5 Feeling aggrieved against order dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure P-6), the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur; however the same was dismissed vide order dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure P-7) by holding as under:- “ORDER DATED 03.10.2023:- On 03.10.2023 the case was perused again at Ferozepur. The arguments put forth by the counsel for the appellant and respondents were considered. The record was scrutinized and investigated. After considering the case, it was found by this Court that the decision of Divisional Canal Officer Abohar is based on the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the reports of Area Ziledar and Sub Divisional Officer Muktsar both the authorities after conducting the spot inspection by themselves have recommended the restoration of demolished watercourse. The appellant-party has shown that there is an alternate watercourse A2, B2, C2, D2 which goes upto the land respondent-party, thus, the demolished watercourse be not GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh restored. According to present documents, the giving of Nakka of water of respondent party is approved as 65M/7/1-8/3, due to which, the demolished watercourse comes in the category of a sanctioned watercourse and the same is fit to be restored. Hence, the Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar has correctly decided the matter, and this court is also agree with the same. Therefore, keeping in view the scrutiny of the facts which came into light, while rejecting/dismissing the appeal of the appellant under section 30FF(3) of the Northern Indian Canal and Drainage Act 8-1873 as amended by Punjab Amendment Act 23-1965, the decision of Divisional Canal Division, Abohar Water Resources Department Punjab, Abohar dated 09.03.23 is hereby restored. This decision was kept reserved on 23-08-2023 and which has been pronounced today on 03-10-2023. This decision should be communicated to the concerned party/parties as per the rules.” 2.6 In the aforementioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court, seeking relief(s) as noticed here-in-above. 3. Heard. 4. A perusal of the records reveal that the prayer of respondent No. 5-Satnam Singh seeking restoration of watercourse (AB) was examined by canal authorities, wherein the spot was inspected and record pertaining to turn of water (warabandi) was also taken into consideration. It was found as a matter of fact that ahead of the demolished watercourse and prior thereto, the watercourse was present at the spot. It has come on record that the watercourse was infact demolished at spot and there was evidence of demolition existing at the site. It has been further found that the nakka of the respondent No. 5 is approved at Rectangle No. 65, killa No. 7/1 – 8/3 and the demolished watercourse comes within the category of sanctioned watercourse and the same was liable to be restored. GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 4.1 It is not disputed that warabandi (turn of water) is the best document to prove nakka taking and nakka giving, which goes to show the existence of watercourse. In Dharambir v. Divisional, 2016(4) RCR (Civil) 681; this Court has observed as under:- “…The naka taking and giving points in warabandi (Annexure R-3) clearly prove the existence of watercourse and establishes the identity of land from where a person is getting irrigation. The canal authorities after visiting the spot have come to the conclusion that watercourse 'AB', (shown in site plan Annexure P- 5), which was a lined watercourse and constructed by the department concerned after adopting the due procedure of law, had been dismantled. The canal authorities also came to the conclusion that there is no alternate source of irrigation for the area of private respondents. The existence of Naka taking and giving on the watercourse 'ABE' (as shown in site plan Annexure P-4) and culvert under the path show the existence of bricklined watercourse, part of which has been dismantled. The canal authorities have rightly ordered restoration of dismantled watercourse…” 4.2 In Kirpal Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, 2015(8) RCR (Civil) 362; this court made following observation:- “…No reference has been made to the warabandi from which it could be borne out as to from which watercourse earlier the parties were irrigating their fields and where their nakka taking and nakka giving points were fixed on the said watercourse. There is no reference to the warabandi presently existing or prior to the dispute. In fact, reference to warabandi existing prior to the dispute was relevant on the basis of which existence of watercourse could have been determined…” GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 5. Considering the totality of circumstances, I am of the considered view that the canal authorities have rightly ordered restoration of dismantled watercourse. 6. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. Resultantly, the instant writ petition fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 7. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. July 25, 2025 (HARSH BUNGER) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh