CWP No.8540 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.8540 of 2005 Date of Decision: 2.11.2010 Naib Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. The Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ludhiana and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. I.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Anupal, AAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. J.S.Brar, Advocate for respondents no.3 to 6. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 27.1.2005 and 25.4.2005, passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Sidhwan Canal Division, Ludhiana and the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana, respectively. The petitioners and private respondents were getting irrigation from outlet RD 74600-R Minawa Minor. The private respondents moved an application before respondent no.2 for sanction of a new outlet RD 76187 and for including 30 acres of the petitioners land. Vide order dated 27.1.2005, respondent no.2 allowed this application. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal. Vide order dated 25.4.2005, the appeal was dismissed. CWP No.8540 of 2005 2 Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the absence of any finding that private respondents are not receiving adequate irrigation from the existing outlet, respondents no.1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to sanction a new outlet and include the petitioners land in the new outlet. It is argued that outlet can be changed, altered or sanctioned, only where a party establishes that the existing arrangement is inadequate. In the absence of any such finding, the impugned orders should be set aside. Counsel for the private respondents and the State of Punjab submit that the impugned orders are legal and valid and have been passed, taking into consideration the interest of irrigation. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. A perusal of the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer reveals that apart from recording the contentions raised by various shareholders and stating that he was waiting for parties to effect a compromise, no reasons whatsoever have been assigned. The Divisional Canal Officer noticed the petitioners contention that the new arrangement would adversely affect irrigation to his land, but failed to record any finding thereon. The Superintending Canal Officer committed the same error. It would be necessary to emphasise that in matters relating to irrigation, the rights of all the co-sharers of an outlet must receive due consideration. The concern expressed by a party must be adequately considered and addressed. The Superintending Canal Officer has referred to the private respondents grievance, but has failed to consider or decide it. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, orders dated 27.1.2005 and 25.4.2005 are set aside and the matter is remitted to CWP No.8540 of 2005 3 the Divisional Canal Officer, Sidhwan Canal Division, Ludhiana, who shall decide the matter within three months from receipt of a certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the Divisional Canal Officer, Sidhwan Canal Division, Ludhiana, on 3.12.2010. 2.11.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE