APURVA 2025.09.11 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, Panjuana Water Services, Sub-Division Sirsa, whereby restoration of the demolished water course has been ordered. 1.1 A further prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 11.02.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Divisional Canal Officer, Water Services Board, Sirsa and order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Service Circle, Sirsa. 2. Briefly, respondent No.5 – Balkaur Singh filed an application before the canal authorities seeking restoration of water course ‘AB’ passing through Killa No.21/20 of Rectangle No.58 towards the western side on the plea that the same has been demolished by the petitioner. On receipt of the said application, an inquiry was conducted by the field staff. The learned Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, Sirsa, upon consideration of the matter and also the documents available on record, held that the disputed water course (AB) had been in existence and operational for more than twenty years and, thus, fell within the category of a permanent water course. Accordingly, vide order dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P-2), he directed its permanent restoration. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the learned Divisional Canal Officer, Sirsa, vide order dated 11.02.2025 (Annexure P-4). The revision filed against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Superintending Canal Officer, Sirsa, vide order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P-5). 3. In the aforementioned circumstances, petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, seeking relief(s) as noticed hereinabove. 4. Heard. APURVA 2025.09.11 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh 5. The learned Divisional Canal Officer, Sirsa, vide order dated 11.02.2025 (Annexure P-4), has returned the following findings:- “Decision: Statement of both the parties were recorded. After hearing the allegations and counter-allegations, the case was perused. On reviewing the map and other attached documents, it was found that the approved map certified by the assessment clerk attached in the case dated 16.08.2024, 09.09.2011, 29.07.2020 and Warabandi 16.08.2004, 09.09.2011, 29.07.2020, all these documents prove that as shown in the map, the disputed watercourse AB was operational since 16.08.2004. From which it appears that the disputed watercourse AB was operational for more than 20 years. Under Section 29 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, any water course running for 20 years or more falls under the category of a permanent watercourse. Apart of this, in another CWP No.1908/1973 titled as Sh. Kartar Singh Vs. SCO, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in its judgment dated 16.03.1982 has clarified that any watercourse running from 20 years or more comes under the category of permanent watercourse. Therefore, there does not seem to be a proper reason for interference by the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, Panjuana Water Services Sub-Divisional Officer, Panjuana dated 18.12.2024. Therefore, the demand of the appellant is not acceptable. In view of the above facts, under section 2(15) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, order are passed to permanently restore the existing canal on the west line from the south to north of killa no.21-20 of watercourse point AB as shown in the map and the appeal of Sh. Gurpreet Singh son of Jagroop Singh is dismissed as not being found proper.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refer to any material/document to dislodge the findings recorded by the canal authorities. Rather, he has fairly conceded that the warabandi has been in existence for more than twenty years. APURVA 2025.09.11 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh 7. The canal authorities below have concurrently held that the water course in question has been running for over twenty years and, therefore, falls within the definition of a ‘permanent water course’ under Section 2(15) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974. In my considered view, there is no error in the impugned orders, which may warrant any interference by this Court. 8. 9. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. APURVA 2025.09.11 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh