IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 462 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 13, 2009 Manoj Kumar …Appellant Versus Chief Canal Officer and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 21.1.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 3375 of 2007. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition of the petitioner-appellant, which was directed against order dated 1.12.2006 (P-10) passed by the Chief Canal Officer, who has refused to interfere in the view taken by the Divisional Canal Officer and Superintending Canal Officer, vide orders dated 28.6.2005 and 19.1.2006 (P-8 & P-9). The Canal Authorities have kept in view and preferred the LPA No. 462 of 2009 larger interest of the irrigation of the deprived area. It might have resulted into bifurcation of the land holding, which was un-avoidable. The Divisional Canal Officer has also relied upon the policy of the State Government to grow more food and sanctioned the water course ‘BC’ on the northern side of Killa No. 110/15 of 1 Karam width on compensation basis. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant at considerable length and perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge with his able assistance. He has made an attempt to resurrect those arguments which he has addressed before the learned Single Judge to make good his submissions. The water course has been sanctioned from the shortest route. Any argument showing that it is not the shortest route would involve re-appreciation of evidence and the learned Single Judge has rightly held that it would not be within the scope of the writ jurisdiction. Accordingly we are of the view that no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) July 13, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2