C.W.P. No.10638 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.10638 of 1992 Date of Decision : 21.04.2011 Ram Bilash Sharma and another …Petitioners Versus The Divisional Canal Officer and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the order Annexure P-4 rejecting an application filed under Section 24 of the Haryana Canal Act, 1974 (for brevity ‘the Act’) which had been moved by the petitioners against the order Annexure P-5 dismissing their appeal. C.W.P. No.10638 of 1992 -2- Undisputedly a temporary water course was running through the land of the private respondents by which the petitioners were irrigating their land. Undisputedly also that water course was running through 3 kilas of land and being a kila cut was causing great hindrance in the proper cultivation of the land of the private respondents. With the agreement of three brothers of the petitioner No.1 (who were 3/4th owners), the original water course was dismantled and a new water course along the kila line was constructed. The petitioners being aggrieved thereof moved an instant application under Section 24 of the Act. The Sub Divisional Canal Officer by well considered order Annexure P-4 rejected the application. A perusal of the order shows that Sub Divisional Canal Officer visited the spot and not only saw the physical condition of the water course but also met all the shareholders. He categorically noticed that three brothers of the petitioner No.1 have accepted the new water course. In these circumstances, the appeal filed was also dismissed vide Annexure P-5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that under Section 24 of the Act even a temporary water course cannot be dismantled without giving alternate source of water of the new water course since it was creating problem in their cultivation. In my opinion, the argument of learned counsel for the C.W.P. No.10638 of 1992 -3- petitioners would have carried much more weight if all the share- holders of the petitioners had also joined him. On the contrary, it comes through the record that other three brothers of the petitioner No.1 had no objection to the construction of new water course. No interference is called for. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 21, 2011 JUDGE ashish