Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Restoration of Dismantled Watercourse, Holds Divisional Canal Officer Empowered Under Section 30-FF of Canal Act

Case Name: Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: January 5, 2015
Citation: LPA No. 2143 of 2014
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by a landowner challenging restoration of a dismantled watercourse, upholding the authorities’ power under Section 30-FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. Justice Raj Mohan Singh, speaking for the Bench, held that the Divisional Canal Officer had rightly ordered restoration after finding, through official inspection and revenue records, that the khal existed since consolidation and had been dismantled by the appellant. The Court emphasized that Section 30-FF applies not only to sanctioned watercourses but also to those established by agreement or easement, and empowers authorities to restore an existing dismantled watercourse but not to dig a new one.

Summary: The dispute arose when co-sharers of agricultural land filed a complaint before the Divisional Canal Officer, Devigarh Division, Patiala, alleging that Lakhwinder Singh and another had dismantled a long-standing watercourse running for over 50 years, thereby obstructing irrigation. The Ziledar, upon inquiry, confirmed dismantling of the portion marked ‘DE’ in Killa No. 12/13-14 and found that the khal ‘ABCD’ was an existing chakbandi (consolidation-recorded) watercourse. The Sub-Divisional Officer concurred and recommended restoration. On January 17, 2013, the Divisional Canal Officer ordered restoration under Section 30-FF of the Act.

The appellant’s appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer was dismissed on March 5, 2013, after he failed to appear at the hearing. The authority reaffirmed that the watercourse existed since consolidation and had been illegally demolished by the appellant, causing loss of irrigation to adjoining landowners. The appellant then filed CWP No. 7504 of 2013 before a Single Judge, who examined the jamabandi for 2011-12 and found khasra No. 204 earmarked as “gair mumkin khal,” covering an area of 21 kanal 18 marla, confirming that the watercourse existed and had been dismantled.

In the present appeal, the Division Bench rejected the appellant’s contention that the watercourse was never dug due to habitation. It held that the concurrent findings of fact by the Ziledar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Divisional Canal Officer, and the Single Judge left no doubt about the khal’s existence and dismantling. The Bench clarified that the Divisional Canal Officer was legally bound to restore the dismantled khal and that the powers under Section 30-FF extended to all categories of recognized, agreed, or easementary watercourses.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit, affirming that the restoration order was in full conformity with law and that the Divisional Canal Officer rightly exercised his authority under Section 30-FF of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873.