CWP No. 9963 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9963 of 1991 Date of decision : 04.03.2011 Ram Mehar and another ....Petitioners versus The Deputy Collector, Bhakra Canal Division, Hisar & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Narender Singh, D.A.G., Haryana for respondent Nos 1 to 3 Nemo for respondent No. 4 despite service **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The epitome of facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Deputy Collector, Bhakra Canal Division, Hisar (respondent No.1), by way of non-speaking impugned order dated 28.06.1990 (Annexure P1), fixed the turn of water of Sher Singh (respondent No. 4) & other share holders. However, the appeals filed by petitioner Telu Ram son of Pohlu Ram and another were accepted by the Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar, Bhakra Canal Divn., Hisar (respondent No. 2), vide order dated 26.11.1990 (Annexure P2). In the wake of petition filed by Sher Singh (respondent No. 4), the order (Annexure P2) was set aside by Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Canal Circle, Hisar (respondent No. 3) and turns of irrigation of the parties were affixed, by means of impugned order dated 19.02.1991 (Annexure P3) Petitioners did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, CWP No. 9963 of 1991 -2- challenging the impugned order (Annexure P3), invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. What is not disputed here, is that much water has flown in this regard during the pendency of the present writ petition and the turn of water/Warabandi have repeatedly been changed at the spot. Therefore, in view of the changed circumstances at the spot, the instant writ petition has become infructuous, which is hereby dismissed as such. Needless to mention here that if petitioners are still aggrieved by the turn of water of irrigation then they would be at liberty to approach respondent No. 1 for redressal of their grievance and he (respondent No. 1) will decide their representation independently on merits, without being influenced in any manner from impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P3) (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge March 04, 2011 G.Arora Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No