Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 21479 = 2026:PHHC:136771
Decided on: 22.09.2026
Present:
Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Navneet Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.
***
Canal watercourse -- Restoration of watercourse -- Canal Authorities passing orders merely on the ground that co-sharers had not come present despite repeated opportunities -- Orders do not exhibit any application of mind -- Matter remanded for fresh decision.
***
Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (VIII of 1873), Section 30-FF -- Constitution of India, Articles 226 & 227 -- Restoration of watercourse AB -- Canal Authorities passing orders merely on the ground that co-sharers had not appeared despite repeated opportunities -- Orders did not exhibit any application of mind -- Canal Authorities exercising quasi-judicial powers and being equipped with technical knowledge required to apply their mind -- Impugned orders set aside -- Matter remanded to Sub Divisional Canal Officer to decide afresh in accordance with law.
(Paras 4-6)
***
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) –
1. Challenge is to the orders dated 22.04.2015 (Annexure P-2) and 19.08.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Canal Authorities, whereby watercourse AB has shown in site plan (Annexure P-1) has been ordered to be restored.
2. Counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the site plan (Annexure P-1), to submit that the Aagawah Rajbaha flows from ‘B’ to ‘A’ and thus, the finding of there being watercourse from ‘A’ to ‘B’ cannot be sustained.
3. Per contra, counsel for the respondent would submit that pure findings of fact have been recorded by the Canal Authorities and the same should not be interfered in the writ jurisdiction.
4. Having heard counsel for the parties and after carefully perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the orders passed by the Canal Authorities do not exhibit any application of mind. The same have been passed merely on the ground that the co-sharers have not come present despite repeated opportunities. Since the Canal Authorities exercise the quasi-judicial powers in dealing with an application for restoration of the canal and are equipped with the technical knowledge, they are required to apply their mind.
5. From the records, it is evident that the flow of watercourse from ‘A’ to ‘B’ has been wrongly recorded and the same cannot be sustained. In view thereof, the present writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 22.04.2015 (Annexure P-2) and 19.08.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Canal Authorities, are hereby set aside.
6. The matter is remanded to the Sub Divisional Canal Officer to decide afresh in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the Sub Divisional Canal Officer on 14.10.2026.
7. All miscellaneous application(s), if any, pending before this Court, stand disposed off.
Petition allowed.
********