IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.1299 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 08, 2011 GURDEEP KAUR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT:Mr. CM Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. RK Girdhar, Advocate, for respondents 4 & 5. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 9.8.2007 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division, and order dated 28.4.2008 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle. 2 It transpires that respondents No.4 and 5 filed an application under Section 68 of the Northern Indian canal and Drainage Act, 1873, before the authorities asking for turn of water to be fixed at Serial No.24/3/A of area Civil Writ Petition No.1299 of 2009 2 measuring 29 kanals 10 marlas and at Serial No.24/3B of area measuring 21 kanals 11 marlas, of Water Course ABDC, from point 'C'. The request has been made in view of the fact that respondents No.4 and 5 exchanged land measuring 29 kanals 10 marlas and, therefore, it would be more convenient to them to have Wari at one point instead of two points. 3. The Divisional Canal Officer, after following the due process, held that water courses ABDC and DEFG are touching the land of respondents No.4 and 5 (in this writ petition). The water course DEFG is Pucca water course but the same is coming from the upper side after taking a turn, whereas water course ABDC had become operational on the spot and there are chances of better irrigation to the land of respondents No.4 and 5. Under the circumstances, the prayer of respondents No.4 and 5 has been allowed vide order (Annexure P-2). The petitioner carried an appeal, which has been dismissed. 4 The short contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the water course is Kutcha and the petitioner does not accept the request of respondents No.4 and 5 in view of the fact that it flows from through the land of the petitioner. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, Civil Writ Petition No.1299 of 2009 3 admits that the water course has been running for about 20 years. There is sanctioned wari on the water course and the water outlet. 6 In view of the fact that the water course has been running for the last about 20 years and Warabandi has been sanctioned on the same, the objection of the petitioner is untenable, in facts. Valid reasons have been assigned by the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer while consolidating the Wari of respondents No.4 and 5, so as to provide better irrigation to their land. 7 Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any adverse effect on the irrigation of the land of the petitioner. 8 In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 9 The writ petition is dismissed. March 08, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?