CWP-20828-2026 1 144 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20828-2026 Date of decision : 13.07.2026 DALIP SINGH ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. B.S. Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Upasana Dhawan, AAG, Haryana with Mr. Vinod Verma, DCO Amdampur, W.S. Division, Hisar. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is aggrieved of the order passed by the authorities whereby dismantled watercourse has been ordered to be restored. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the watercourse restored runs through private land of the petitioner and was merely a bhaichara watercourse. 3. The plea raised by counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Section 2(15) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (for short, ‘the 1974 Act’) defines “watercourse” as under: 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 DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20828-2026 2 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.” 3.1. Section 24 of 1974 Act provides for restoration of demolished watercourse 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 Sub Divisional 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: 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. DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20828-2026 3 (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. The authorities after investigation found that the watercourse was in existence. The same was dismantled. The same was proved by Khaka plan and Parat Warabandi dated 20th of April, 1989 and 10th of March, 2021. It is on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the authority observed as under: “Accordingly the disputed watercourse AB as marked on the khaka plan seems to be remained in existence for the last more than 35 years. As the extract of khaka plan dated27.09.1989 proves it fully. Even 10 min. bhrai and 24 min. jhrai having takin point of the appellant/petitioner at Point 67//5X68//10 as well as delivery point at Rectangle Killa No. 39X59. Resultantly the watercourse AB is hereby restored on Permanent basis by maintain the decision dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer Adampur. The appeal of Dalip Singh S/o Sh. Rajbir is rejected.” 5. Apart therefrom, State Counsel has also produced a copy of the statement made by the petitioner whereby he agreed to restore the watercourse and to withdraw the present writ petition. 6. Without going into the factum of statement suffered by the petitioner, this Court finds that the orders passed by the authorities are based DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20828-2026 4 upon correct appreciation of the facts and bhaichara watercourse being a watercourse recognized in law, the authorities cannot be faulted with for having restored the same exercising power under Section 24 of the 1974 Act. 7. Resultantly, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed. July 13, 2026 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document