MITHU SINGH vs SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER — CWP/9545/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226/227 CPC. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 30-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010490792026

e-Filing Number

20-03-2026

Filing Number

CWP/17129/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

CWP/9545/2026

Registration Date

25-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger

Coram

Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger

Bench Type

Single

Category

18.11 - LAND LAWS S.B. ( 448 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226/227 CPC

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MITHU SINGH

    Adv. SURINDER GARG

  2. 2.Superintending Canal Officer

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

  2. 2.Superintending Canal Officer

  3. 3.Divisional Canal Officer Bathinda Canal and Ground Water Division

  4. 4.Balvir Singh

  5. 5.Gurwinder Singh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Harsh BungerView PDF

    Case Summary: CWP/9545/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Mithu Singh's petition challenging Canal Authorities' orders to realign a watercourse back to its originally sanctioned location on the common boundary between his land and respondents' land. The court held that the Canal Authorities had authority to correct the watercourse alignment to its sanctioned position, finding the issue was purely about precise location rather than land ownership (which was separately adjudicated in civil court). The court upheld the orders, directing appointment of a local commission to demarcate boundaries and restore the watercourse to its original sanctioned spot, benefiting all co-sharers' irrigation interests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/9545/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP/9545/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Mithu Singh's petition challenging Canal Authorities' orders to realign a watercourse back to its originally sanctioned location on the common boundary between his land and respondents' land. The court held that the Canal Authorities had authority to correct the watercourse alignment to its sanctioned position, finding the issue was purely about precise location rather than land ownership (which was separately adjudicated in civil court). The court upheld the orders, directing appointment of a local commission to demarcate boundaries and restore the watercourse to its original sanctioned spot, benefiting all co-sharers' irrigation interests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case