29.10.2025 ARVINDER DER SINGH v. SUPERINTE CANAL CIR INTENDING CANAL OFFICER, FE L CIRCLE, FEROZEPUR AND OTH R, FEROZEPUR
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN T AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH M) CWP-30656-2025 (O&M) 25 Date of decision :29.10.2025 ARVINDER DER SINGH …Petitioner Versus SUPERINTE CANAL CIR INTENDING CANAL OFFICER, FE L CIRCLE, FEROZEPUR AND OTH R, FEROZEPUR OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Judgepreet Singh Warring, A , Advocate for the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Navneet Singh, Addl. A.G., A.G., Punjab. HARSH BUN H BUNGER, J. [ORAL] Prayer in the present writ p ticles writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of th 7 of the Constitution of India, is for is ature s for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari rari, for setting aside the order date 7) er dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the by the learned Superintending Canal O anal Officer, Ferozepur. 2. Briefly, respondent No.3-Sukhw have Sukhwinder Kaur is stated to have purchased lan sed land from the family of the petiti land petitioner. It is stated that the land pockets of the of the petitioner is in the form of strip am of strip of land of about 24-25 karam width and 11 118 karam length. Petitioner cla f the er claims that the irrigation of the afore-said la aid land pocket (in the form of s the of strip) is possible only if the watercourse c urse connects in the middle of his aims field. Petitioner further claims that responde spondent No.3/her family members c ceful bers created hurdle in the peaceful irrigation pro on process of the petitioner, which er to hich constrained the petitioner to approach the ch the canal authorities by way of an 2024 of an application dated 05.07.2024 GURPREET KAUR 2025.11.03 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 5 Page 1 of 5 (Annexure P-3), wherein prayer was made for restraining respondent No.3 from creating any hinderance in the running of the watercourse. 2.1 It appears that on the afore-said application submitted by the petitioner, the Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar passed an order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-6) directing respondent No.3 not to tamper with the watercourse (AB) in any manner, the relevant extract whereof reads as under :- “The case has been perused. In order to verify the status of the case, the spot inspection has been done on 10.10.2024. The spot site plan has been perused. The Khal/watercourse Point AB shown in the site plan is existing at the spot and the warabandi is approved on the same. On perusal of the documents attached with the case and after the spot inspection, the prayer/request of the applicant is accepted under section 70(4) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act 8 of 1873 Amended 23 of 1965 and the respondent party is hereby directed not to tamper with in any manner with the aforesaid Khal/watercourse Point AB in future. If the direction or the structure of the Khal/watercourse is changed by tampering with the same due to which, the warabandi of the applicant is affected then the departmental proceeding will be initiated against the respondent under section 70(4) of the said Act.” 2.2 Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the learned Superintending Canal Officer, who vide its order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) set aside the order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-6). 2.3 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court, for seeking relief, as noticed here-in-above. 3. Heard. GURPREET KAUR 2025.11.03 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 2 of 5 4. In the present case, although vide order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), the Divisional Canal Officer had directed respondent No.3 not to tamper with the watercourse (AB) in any manner; however, on an appeal being filed by respondent No.3, the petitioner failed to prove the existence of watercourse (AB), accordingly, learned Superintending Canal Officer vide impugned order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) set aside the order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-6) by observing as under :- “The appellant party, their counsel and the arguments of the respondent party have been considered at Ferozepur. On examination of the record and perusal of the documents come on file, it has been found that the Divisional Canal Officer has not examined the record attached with the case, at the time of deciding the case and therefore, passed the order dated 24.12.2024 without any reason. The Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division, showed that the khal/watercourse AB is approved under the Warabandi on comparing it with the copy of Warabandi included in the file, it was found that as per the warabandi, the channel of getting water of the applicant (respondent) 10 karam earlier from 134//6-26 and channel giving water 134//26A is approved. As per the warabandi, the existence of khal/watercourse Point A-B is not proven, therefore, the khal/watercourse Point A-B cannot be considered as an approved khal/watercourse of the Warabandi. Further, as per the documents submitted by the appellant in this court, during the division of the joint account of canal irrigation of the areas of the appellant and the respondent, while arranging the canal, a common area was left for the khal/watercourse which is the khal/watercourse Point C-D shown in the site plan and is recorded as gair mumkin as per the Revenue record i.e. Jamabandi which proves that khal/watercourse Point C-D is a khal/watercourse started by mutual consent and falls under the category of Sanctioned by Agreement under the Canal Act. It GURPREET KAUR 2025.11.03 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh is clear from the reading of the site plan, the canal irrigation Page 3 of 5 of the area of the applicant (in this case the respondent is starting from the khal/watercourse Point C-D shown in the site plan which belies the statement made by the applicant to the District Magistrate that there is no khal/watercourse for their area from any other side except Point A-B and our area will
Decision
not be irrigated. In view of the above facts, this court has come to the conclusion that the khal/watercourse left by mutual consent for the canal irrigation of the land of the applicant- respondent is present at Point C-D and this khal/watercourse falls in the category of approved khal/watercourse from which, better irrigation of the land is obtained which proves that the Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division has made its decision dated 24.12.2024 on the basis of the statements of the applicant (respondent) only, with which, this court does not agree. Keeping in view the above facts, this court, proceeding under section 70 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act 8 of 1873 and the Punjab Amendment Act 23 of 1965, allows the appeal and the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division, Abohar dated 24.12.2024 is set aside. The Divisional Canal Officer is directed to consider the cases under the rules of the Canal Act in future and the Deputy Collector is directed to approve the channels as per the rules for the irrigation of the area of both the parties through the sanctioned khal/watercourse, as per the decision so that dispute may not arise regarding the position of the khal/watercourse, in future. This decision was kept reserved on 21.05.2025. It was made today i.e. 09.06.2025. The decision should be communicated to the concerned parties under the rules.” 5. A perusal of the above extracted order would show that as per the warabandi records, the existence of khal/watercourse (AB) was not proved. Rather, it has been found as a matter of fact that during partition of holdings, a common area was left for khal/watercourse (CD), which was depicted in the site plan and also in the revenue records (jamabandi). GURPREET KAUR 2025.11.03 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 4 of 5 Therefore, the khal/watercourse (CD) was started by mutual consent and was covered under the category of sanctioned watercourse by way of agreement. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to dislodge the afore-said findings returned by the learned Superintending Canal Officer nor he has referred to any material to show the existence of watercourse (AB). Besides, a perusal of the site plan (Annexure P-2) would show that the watercourse (AB) bifurcates the area shown in yellow colour in two parts. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not show the water taking point and water giving point upon the watercourse (AB) by referring to any warabandi record. In the order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-7), it has been observed that in the records, the channel of getting water for the petitioner was 10 karams prior to killa No.134//6-26 and channel for giving water is at killa No.134//26 A, which was approved one. 6.1 Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-7). 7. In view of the above discussion, I see no compelling reason, which may warrant interference by this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the instant writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. All pending applications (if any) shall also stand closed. October 29, 2025 gurpreet (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2025.11.03 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 5 of 5