CWP-17793-2026 1 137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17793-2026 Date of decision : 14.07.2026 DARSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS ....Petitioners Versus SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. J.S. Warring, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Addl. A.G., Punjab. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 27.03.2026 passed by Superintending Canal Officer, upholding the order passed by Divisional Canal Officer, dated 19.01.2026 permitting extension of the tail of Rajbaha, Peori. 2. The dispute relates to extension of tail of Rajbaha (Distributary Canal) Peori on the application filed by the private respondents. Notice was issued to all the stakeholders for 26.11.2025. Notice dated 10.11.2025 is on record as Annexure P-3. The same was intimated to the stakeholders on 12.11.2025. Intimation is on record at Page 31. The authorities after DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.23 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17793-2026 2 receiving report from Ziledar and spot inspection was conducted on 09.12.2025 to assess the feasibility of the proposed extension. 2.1. Upon consideration of the report submitted by the field staff, the Divisional Canal Officer concluded that Tail Mogha, Burji, 20137/TF needs extension. Accordingly, vide order dated 19.01.2026, the extension of canal tail was approved. 2.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petitioners preferred an appeal. 2.3. The same stands dismissed by Superintending Canal Officer vide order dated 27.03.2026, observing as under: “Today, on date 27.03.2026, the case file was examined again. The documents included in the file, the reports of the field staff and the decision of the Divisional Officer Bathinda Canal and Ground Water Division, Bathinda were thoroughly perused. The appeal of the appellants was also considered. The arguments presented in support of their respective cases by the appellant party and the respondent party who appeared on the date of the hearing were also thoroughly considered. After scrutinizing and considering all the above facts, it is clear that the decision of the Divisional Officer Bathinda Canal and Ground Water Division, Bathinda is correct and in the interest of more irrigation because by extending the front of the tail of the Peori distributary canal further, there will be an increase in the irrigation of 700 acres of land area of the respondent party. The objection raised by the appellant that by extending the front of the tail further, it will affect their tail on the left is not correct because the outlet (mogha) will become operational for them according to their due share, due to which there will be no loss to their irrigation. Therefore, under the campaign by the government to reach maximum canal water up to the fields and to save the underground DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.23 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17793-2026 3 water, the decision made on dated 19.01.2026 by the Divisional Canal Officer, Bathinda Canal and Ground Water Division, Bathinda is upheld. This decision has been made under Section 13(1) and 14(3) of the Canal and Drainage Act 2023. Because the decision was kept reserved, therefore let both parties be informed in writing.” 3. Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any infirmity in the order. It is an admitted position that the outlet of the petitioner is situated prior to the proposed outlet. The petitioner is unable to show any prejudice being caused to his irrigation rights by extension of the tail. 4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners submits that the Canal Authorities be directed to consider the modalities of extending tail up to central point of Rectangle Nos.99 and 100. He refers to site plan at Page 26. 5. From the records, it is discernible that prior to the passing of order dated 19.01.2026, notices were issued to all stakeholders, objections were invited, report of Ziledar was obtained and spot inspection was also conducted. It was found that extension of the tail would increase irrigation facility of an area measuring approximately 700 acres. It was also found that the outlet of the petitioner falls prior to the proposed outlet. Once the petitioner’s outlet is situated upstream of the proposed extension, the extension would not in any way adversely affect their irrigation rights. 6. Finding no merits in the present writ petition that call for interference in the impugned orders, the present writ petition is disposed off DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.23 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17793-2026 4 with the direction to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities with the proposal of getting an outlet within Rectangle Nos.99 and 100. 7. This Court is sanguine that if any such prayer is made to the Canal Authorities, the same shall be considered in accordance with law expeditiously. If the proposal finds favour with the Canal Authorities, the same may be included in the present scheme. However, the opinion formulated by authorities shall be final. July 14, 2026 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.23 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document