CWP-35566-2025 1 118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-35566-2025 Date of decision : 07.07.2026 BHARPOOR SINGH AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. J.S. Santwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Upasana Dhawan, AAG, Haryana. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition is directed against order passed by Canal Authorities whereby restoration of watercourse has been ordered. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the watercourse can be restored only if it is proved to be: (i) sanctioned watercourse; (ii) watercourse based upon agreement between the parties; or (iii) the watercourse in use. The watercourse which has been ordered to be restored does not fall in any of the three categories. He submits that the impugned orders having been passed without any evidence on record to prove that the case of the respondent falls within the ambit of Section 2(15) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1974 Act’), the same deserves to be set aside. DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.10 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-35566-2025 2 3. The argument raised by counsel for the petitioners is misplaced. 3.1. In order to appreciate the contention raised by counsel for the petitioners, it will be apt to peruse the following bare provisions of law: “2. Definitions- In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:- (1) xxx xxx (15) “watercourse” means any channel including all its subsidiary works which is supplied with water from a canal, but not maintained at the cost of the State Government, and is sanctioned under this Act or is in existence under an agreement or by prescription.” 3.2. Section 24 of 1974 Act deals with restoration of demolished or altered watercourses. The same reads as under: “24. Restoration of demolished or altered etc. Watercourse. - (1) If a person demolishes, alters, enlarges or obstructs a watercourse or a temporary watercourse or causes any damage thereto, any person affected thereby may apply to the Sub- Divisional Canal Officer for directing the restoration of the same to its original condition. (2) On receiving an application under sub-section (1) the SubDivisional Canal Officer may, after making such enquiry as he may deem fit, enquiry, by a notice in writing served on the person found to be responsible for so demolishing, altering, enlarging, obstructing or causing damage, to restore, at his own cost, the watercourse or temporary watercourse to its original condition within such period not exceeding twenty-one days, as may be specified in the notice: DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.10 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-35566-2025 3 Provided that in case of a temporary watercourse its restoration shall not be for a period exceeding one year. (3) If such person fails to the satisfaction of the Sub- Divisional Canal Officer, to restore the watercourse or temporary watercourse to its original condition within the period specified in the notice served on him under sub-section (2) the Sub Divisional Canal Officer may cause the watercourse or temporary watercourse to be restored to its original condition and recover the cost incurred in respect of such restoration from the defaulting person. The Sub- Divisional Canal Officer may order recovery of a sum not exceeding Rs. 500 from the defaulting person by way of penalty. Out of this sum so recovered the Sub-Divisional Canal officer may order any amount to be paid to the aggrieved person for the damage caused to him. In case the penalty is not paid the same shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. (4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer. May prefer an appeal within fifteen days of the passing of such order to the Divisional Canal Officer, whose decision on such appeal shall be final. (5) Any sum which remains unpaid within a period to be specified for this purpose by the Divisional Canal Officer may be recovered as arrears of land revenue.” 4. On receiving application, the concerned authority conducted inquiry. The orders have been passed on the basis of site inspection conducted by Zilledar. As per his report, it stands proved that the watercourse was in existence which was demolished. SDO, Kalanwali inspected the site on 03.10.2023. He found that the watercourse was damaged. The authorities further found that there is no alternate watercourse to provide irrigation to the land of the respondent. Thus, the watercourse was required to be restored. DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.10 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-35566-2025 4 5. Pure finding of fact has been recorded by the Courts below after due procedure. Trite it is that the orders passed by Canal Authorities being best judge of the factual position on the spot need not be interfered in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India until the same are found to be perverse. The impugned orders having been passed after conducting spot inspection which concluded that the watercourse A-B-C- was in existence but was damaged and in the background of the fact that the respondent has no other source of irrigation, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the canal authorities. 6. Resultantly, finding no merit in the instant writ petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed. July 07, 2026 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.10 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document