DALIP SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CWP-20828-2026 1 144 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20828-2026 Date of decision : 13.07.2026 DALIP SINGH ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. B.S. Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Upasana Dhawan, AAG, Haryana with Mr. Vinod Verma, DCO Amdampur, W.S. Division, Hisar. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is aggrieved of the order passed by the authorities whereby dismantled watercourse has been ordered to be restored. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the watercourse restored runs through private land of the petitioner and was merely a bhaichara watercourse. 3. The plea raised by counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Section 2(15) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (for short, ‘the 1974 Act’) defines “watercourse” as under: 2. Definitions- In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:- (1) xxx xxx (15) “watercourse” means any channel including all its subsidiary works which is supplied with water from a canal, but DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20828-2026 2 n