09.09.2025 SHISHPAL AND ANOTHER SHISHPAL AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 2025 (O&M) CWP-23020-2025 (O&M) Date of decision :09.09.2025 Date of decision :09.09.2025 SHISHPAL AND ANOTHER SHISHPAL AND ANOTHER …Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA …Respondents CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : , Advocate Mr. Sube S. Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners. Kapil Bansal, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Kapil Bansal, D.A.G., Haryana. HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL] HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL] Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure P 3) , for setting aside the order dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) fficer, Pabra; order dated passed by the learned Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Pabra; order dated passed by the learned Sub Divisional Canal O passed by the learned Sub Divisional Canal O 5) passed by the learned Divisional Canal Officer, 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Divisional Canal Officer, 5) passed by the learned Divisional Canal Officer, 10.02.2025 (Annexure P 7) passed by the learned Hisar and order dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Hisar and order dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P Hisar and order dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P Superintending Canal Officer, Hisar. Superintending Canal Officer, Hisar. 2. Briefly, respondent No.3-Vikas filed an appl ication before the Vikas filed an application before the Canal authorities, seeking restoration of demolished watercourse running Canal authorities, seeking restoration of demolished watercourse running Canal authorities, seeking restoration of demolished watercourse running Canal authorities, seeking restoration of demolished watercourse running through Killa No.7//24/25 (middle dole), on the plea that the Killa No.7//24/25 and 16-17 (middle dole), on the plea that the (middle dole), on the plea that the same has been dismantled by the petitioners. same has been dismantled by the petitioners. same has been dismantled by the petitioners. 2.1
Decision
No.5 of the writ petition, the petitioners have averred In para No.5 of the writ petition, the petitioners have averred No.5 of the writ petition, the petitioners have averred as under :- That it is submitted that the matter was amicably “5. That it is submitted that the matter was amicably That it is submitted that the matter was amicably settled between settled between settled between the parties on 19.07.2022 the parties on 19.07.2022 the parties on 19.07.2022 through a through a through a GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.17 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh compromise (bhaichara) during Panchayat proceedings. It compromise (bhaichara) during Panchayat proceedings. It compromise (bhaichara) during Panchayat proceedings. It 3 Page 1 of 3 was decided in the panchayat that private respondent will give the similar land to the petitioners in exchange and the petitioners will allow the respondent to use the said watercourse which comes into the land of the petitioners and due to the said compromise the watercourse was temporarily restored on mutual agreement. The petitioners and the respondent no.3 given statements before the SDCO on the basis of the said oral compromise, the SDCO closed the file without adjudicating the matter on merits. In this regard copies of statements of respondent and the petitioners dated 30.06.2025 are attached herewith as Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2.” 2.2 It is stated that respondent No.3 breached the compromise and did not give any land to the petitioners in exchange and rather, in June- 2024, he again filed an application seeking restoration of the watercourse; whereupon, the learned Sub Divisional Canal Officer, passed an order dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) directing restoration of the watercourse for a period of six months only by observing that the watercourse in question was running on the spot on brotherly basis and that the said watercourse was neither approved nor there was any fixation of turn (warabandi). 2.3 Being dissatisfied, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Canal Officer; however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) by directing that the watercourse be restored for a period of one year from its actual restoration at site. 2.4 Still dissatisfied, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the learned Superintending Canal Officer, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-7). 2.5 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court, for the relief, as noticed here-in-above. GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.17 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 2 of 3 3. 4. Heard. During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the watercourse in question, was running on bhai-chara basis, however, it is contended that there was a settlement (Annexure P-8) arrived at between the parties whereby, it was agreed that respondent No.3-Vikas would provide equivalent piece of his own land in exchange for the portion of land of one Jeevan Singh (petitioner No.2) through which the watercourse was passing; however, the said agreement has been breached by respondent No.3. 5. I have considered the afore-said contention raised on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners, suffice it to say that in case, there was a settlement (Annexure P-8) between the parties then the petitioners could have sought specific performance of the same. 5.1 Be that as it may, since the existence of watercourse (although on brotherly basis) is not disputed by the petitioners and considering the fact that the watercourse has been ordered to be restored only for a period of one year from the date of its actual restoration at site, I find no compelling reason to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed; however, with the observation that the afore-said restored watercourse, which has been restored only for a period of one year, shall not be extended for any further period. 6. All pending applications (if any) shall also stand closed. September 09, 2025 gurpreet (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.17 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 3 of 3