S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 987/2003 Date : 05.10.2006 HON'BLE MR. BHAGWATI PRASAD,J. Mr. B.S. Sandhu for the petititioner. Mr. R.S. Sidhu for the respondent. = = == = = Heard. The petitioner is using an additional `naka'. It is admitted that this `naka' is not sanctioned. While the water channels were being made pucca, the petitioner applied for getting two additional `naka'. The Executive Engineer rejected the prayer for two and sanctioned one `naka'. The Superintending Engineer on appeal, did not agree with Executive Engineer and sanction of additional `naka' was negated by him on the ground all the persons who are affected and shall be affected have not agreed for this change. He has further opined that when this was conceived that water channels would be made pucca, it was made clear to everybody that no additional naka will be sanctioned, as it results into loss of water due to streaming of water channel. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the order on the ground that the order has been passed on hypothetical ground and no cogent reasons have been given. The tactical aspect has not been considered as has been considered by the Executive Engineer. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is wrong to say that the order has been passed on the basis of hypothetical grounds. Substantial grounds have been narrated regarding loss of water due to streaming alongwith the fact that when the construction of pucca water channels was conceived, it was made clear that additional naka would not be sanctioned. Petitioner since long has been using the illegal naka, therefore, in order to get additional advantage, he is sticking to the claim that he should be granted additional naka. I have considered the rival submissions and have given my thoughtful consideration. The petitioner's claim is based on prescription and use of additional naka, which was un-authorised for a long time. It is also based on technical requirement. A sanction has been made by Executive Engineer but Superintending Engineer has rejected the same on the grounds which as claimed by the petitioner are hypothetical. The grounds are reasoned for rejection. When no other cultivator is being sanctioned additional naka, then grant in favour of the petitioner will be of the nature of additional favour which would not be a legitimate exception. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for. The writ petition having no force is hereby dismissed. (BHAGWATI PRASAD), J. bjsh