CWP No. 10318 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10318 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: June 02, 2011 Gordhan Singh and others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and others .......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate, for Mr. G.S. Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. Arguments have been addressed by learned counsel for the petitioners in context of site plan-Annexure P-1. 2. Learned counsel contends that for 13 years, watercourse ABCD was in existence. For the interest of villagers, the petitioners volunteered that their land be used and BED watercourse be put in place, which was allowed. 3. Learned counsel contends that at this juncture by virtue of impugned orders, watercourse BC has also been directed to be restored. Learned counsel contends that because watercourse BED was in lieu of ABCD, vide impugned order watercourse BC could not have been directed to be restored. Learned counsel further contends that the land of the petitioners would be further bifurcated and substantial loss would be caused to the interest of the petitioners. 4. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 5. Perusal of order Annexure P-4 indicates that watercourse BC has CWP No. 10318 of 2011 2 been restored only for one year, whereafter the private respondent would be required to make an application for permanent watercourse, if one is desired. 6. This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise the issues raised in this petition before the authorities in case an application for permanent watercourse is made by the private respondent. The authorities are directed to consider the contention of the petitioners noticed above at the time of taking a decision in regard to making watercourse BC permanent. 02.06.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE