Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 21481 = 2026:PHHC:135119
Decided on: 18.09.2026
Present:
Ms. Varuna Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhimanyu Antil, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. S.S. Patter, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7.
***
Temporary watercourse -- Regularization -- Application for regularization wrongly treated as time-barred appeal -- Superintending Canal Officer ought to have referred application to Competent Authority -- Liberty granted to petitioner to apply for regularization.
***
Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (29 of 1974), Section 2(12), 17, 24 -- Regularization of temporary watercourse -- Application for regularization rejected by Superintending Canal Officer by treating it as a time-barred appeal -- Application was for regularization of watercourse and not an appeal against the order passed by Canal Authorities -- Superintending Canal Officer ought to have referred the application to the Competent Authority instead of dismissing it as time-barred -- Liberty granted to petitioner to move an application before Divisional Canal Officer to be dealt with in accordance with law within six months -- Writ petition disposed of.
(Paras 1-7)
***
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) –
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner assails orders dated 16.09.2019 (P-3) and that dated 04.03.2021 (P-4) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the request made by the petitioner for regularization of temporary watercourse has been declined.
2. The petitioner owns orchard. He applied for restoration of the watercourse. The same was ordered to be temporarily restored for one year. Subsequently, he moved an application dated 25.01.2019 (P-2) seeking regularization thereof. The same has been rejected by Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services Circle No.1, Hisar treating appeal as time barred vide order dated 16.09.2019 (P-3)
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at no point of time, any appeal was filed, rather an application was moved for regularization of the temporary watercourse.
4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the perusal of Annexure P-2 would reveal that it is merely an application for regularization of watercourse and not an appeal against the order passed by Canal Authorities.
5. Accordingly, Superintending Canal Officer ought to have referred the same to the Competent Authority instead of dismissing the same as time barred.
6. In view of above, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an application before the Divisional Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services Division, Hisar, seeking regularization of the watercourse. In case such application is moved, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law, within a period of 06 months.
7. Disposed off, accordingly.
8. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed off.
Order accordingly.
********