LPA No. 143 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 143 of 2009 Date of decision 27 .7.2009 Har Pal and another ...Appellants Versus The Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain,Advocate for the Appellants 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 12.1.2009 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing CWP of 16976 of 2005 filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners had challenged order dated 2.9.2005 (P.8) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer- respondent no. 3 issuing directions for making of a new water outlet functional. The grievance made was that without withdrawing earlier outlet no new water outlet could have been sanctioned. The opportunity to sanction new water course had arisen because 27 share holders applied to the Divisional Canal Officer- respondent no.2 complaining that their area was not receiving proper irrigation from the existing outlet. They requested for splitting up the existing outlet and providing for a new outlet. The demand of the share holders was found to be genuine and approved on 26.3.2001. Eventually, after dismissal of appeal new outlet was allowed for some area besides LPA No. 143 of 2009 2 holding that part of the existing area would continue to receive irrigation from the existing outlet. The appellant-petitioner also raised a dispute before the learned Single Judge with regard to water course shown as 'AB' alleging it had been de-linked with the source of irrigation long time back and it would be futile to restore the same. The learned Single Judge found that restoration of water course 'AB' which is a pucca water course was not to prejudice the rights of the Appellant-petitioners in any manner since the Appellant-petitioners as well as respondents were co-sharers in the land occupied by the water course. The learned Single Judge also found that in exercise of writ juirisdiction the High Court was not to sit in appeal and the matter is required to be left to be determined by the officials who are expert in their field. We have heard the learned counsel at some length and find that no meaningful argument warranting admission of the appeal could be raised. The water course 'AB' which is a pucca water course and is in existence would benefit the Appellant- petitioners on account of its restoration. It would advance the interest of irrigation which would benefit the Appellants-petitioners as well as the respondents. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 27.7.2009 Judge okg