IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.791 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 06.05.2011 Swaran Singh and others …..Appellants versus Superintending Canal Officers and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the Appellants Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 30.3.2011, dismissing CWP No.5839 of 2010, filed by the appellants-petitioners. Heard. By filing that writ petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to an order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer on 31.12.2008 under Section 30-A and 30-B of the Northern Indian Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 (in short, the Act) to carve out a new canal minor. Further challenge is to an order passed in an appeal filed by the appellants on 18.2.2010. It is coming out from the records that as per provisions of the Act, Scheme was prepared and published, to which the petitioners filed objections, which were heard and decided by the Divisional Canal Officer vide order dated 31.12.2008. The appellants went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Superintending Canal Officer vide order dated 18.2.2010. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- LPA No.791 of 2011(O&M) “This case’s again proper investigation was done on 19.2.2010 at Ludhiana. Both parties arguments were considered. In this relation on the spot inspection was done on 03.02.2010. Daula Minor’s tails was 0.5 on the spot. It is pertinent to mention here that Daula minor comes out of Kot Bhai Rajbah’s Burji 120050-L, Kotbhai Rajbah’s RD 137.795 has tail. On which 7 minor’s come out from separate places. Daula minor’s tail at RO 14535 TR and 14535 TL and rather Peiori Rajbah comes out of Racke feeder, Racke Feeder which comes out of Bathinda Branch whose length is 52000 till tail RD and from this 2 Rajbah comes out. Peiori Rajbah comes out of Racka feeder’s RD 25750. These both systems are cleaned by Government and even by shareholder own their. But on Daula minor’s tail usually water gets decreased because when canals supplying gets till be effected, its direct effect is at Daula minor’s tail. That’s why new Peiori Minor which is proposed to come out of Peiori Rajbah’s RD 18160-R that is in public welfare in favour of better irrigation and production, opposite party are shareholder of Peori Rajbah’s RD 20137 tails from that new Peiori minor is proposed to come out of Peiori Rajbah’s RD 18160 Burji by the DCO, Bathinda Canal Division, Bathinda. From this it is clearly proved that Kot Bhai Distri’s length is very much minor get’s less water because it is approve 45 Kms from Bathinda Branch rather from Racka Feeder Peiori Rajbah’s tail is approve. 16 Kms whose cleaning is easier. It is not legal that if appellants state that they will not give Peori Rajbah’s water to the 2 LPA No.791 of 2011(O&M) shareholder of daula Rajbah because. As such water as per the area which will be reduced from the Daula minor that much area water will be supplied to Peiori Rajbah by remodeling it and by increasing its capacity through proposed Peiori minor, with that Peiori Rajbah’s tails will not have any bad effect. There this statement can also not be accepted that they will not give land for the development of proposed Peori minor. New proposed Peiori minor can also supply water to the adjoining area which is commendable, that can also be supplied by canal water. That’s why for better canal irrigation and production the order dated 31.12.2008 by the DCO, Bathinda Canal Division, Bathinda be upheld. For that appellants appeal be dismissed under Canal and Drainage Act 8 year 1973 under section 30-B(3) and DCO, Bathinda Canal Division Bathinda’s judgment dated 31.12.2008 be upheld as it is in the favour of better canal irrigation and production.” The authorities below have come to a conclusion that the construction/ extension of the canal minor is for the better irrigation. To say so, objections made by the appellants and the report made by the field staff has been taken note of. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that no illegality and infirmity has been indicated in the Scheme prepared. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 06.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3