CWP-20893-2026 1 151 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20893-2026 Date of decision : 13.07.2026 DARSHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER ....Appellants Versus SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Avocate and Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) 1). The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of orders dated 27.12.2023 (Annexure P-5), 11.03.2024 (Annexure P-7) and 21.06.2024 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Deputy Collector, Bathinda Canal Division, Bathinda, the Divisional Canal Officer, Bathinda Canal and Ground Water Division, Bathinda and the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana, respectively, whereby amendment in the Warabandi pertaining to Outlet Burji No.8950/TR, New Peori Minor, Village Gidderbaha, has been approved in favour of respondents No.4 and 5. DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.23 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20893-2026 2 2). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondents No.4 and 5 were already receiving canal water through Khata No.247 situated adjacent to their land and therefore there was no necessity for granting them another turn of water through Khata No.244-A. It is further averred that respondents No.4 and 5 had been irrigating their land through a lift pump for a considerable period and their turn had already been disconnected from the outlet in question. 3). Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 submits that except the present Nakka and watercourse, respondents No.4 and 5 have no other effective source of irrigation. The amendment was approved in the interest of better irrigation. It is further being argued that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners as their turn of water falls prior to that of the private respondents. 4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5). The record reveals that the proceedings originated from an application seeking amendment in the Warabandi under Section 68 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Pursuant thereto, notices were issued to all concerned co-sharers and their objections were duly considered. The petitioners objected to the proposed amendment primarily on the ground that respondents No.4 and 5 were already irrigating their land through a lift pump and that they had an alternative source of irrigation. The existing watercourse was in a DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.23 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20893-2026 3 dilapidated condition and that permitting the respondents to obtain their turn through the said watercourse would adversely affect the petitioners’ interests. 6). The Deputy Collector approved the amendment vide order dated 27.12.2023. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 68(5) of the Act before the Divisional Canal Officer. The appellate authority affirmed the findings recorded by the Deputy Collector holding that except the present Nakka and watercourse, respondents No.4 and 5 had no other source of irrigation. 7). The petitioners thereafter invoked revisional jurisdiction. The revisional authority found that pursuant to the earlier remand, the Deputy Collector had personally inspected the site and had passed the impugned order after verifying the factual position. It was further held that respondents No.4 and 5 had no other effective source of irrigation and that the amendment had been approved in the interest of better irrigation. The revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 21.06.2024. 8). The primary grievance of the petitioners was that respondents No.4 and 5 were already receiving canal water through another Khata situated closer to their land. There was no justification for granting them an additional turn through Khata No.244-A. However, a perusal of the site plan (Annexure P-10), relied upon by the petitioners themselves, clearly depicts the physical alignment of the watercourse and the respective Khatas of the parties. The site plan demonstrates that the petitioner’s outlet falls prior to DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.23 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20893-2026 4 the outlet proposed in favour of respondents No.4 and 5 and that canal water first reaches the petitioner’s fields before proceeding towards the land of the private respondents. 9). Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the petitioner’s turn precedes the respondent’s turn. Once the petitioners receive canal water before the respondents, they have failed to demonstrate as to how the impugned amendment curtails their allotted turn of water or causes any prejudice in their existing irrigation rights. 10). In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere in 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 2026.07.23 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document