IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.6151 of 1986 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 27, 2011 Jagir Singh and others .....PETITIONERS Versus The Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Canal Circle, Sirsa and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr. Harpal Singh Sirohi, Advocate, for the petitioners. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. In the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.6.1985 (Annexure P2) passed by the Deputy Collector and order dated 4.10.1986 (Annexure P4) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirsa Bhakra Canal Circle. Vide order dated 4.10.1986, the Superintending Canal Officer has set aside the order dated 10.12.1985 (Annexure P3) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer and upheld the order dated 2.6.1985 passed by the Deputy Collector. The dispute in this case is about fixing the warabandi. It is the case of the petitioners that the land owned by them in village Moujgarh is being irrigated by outlet R.D.55000 Masitan Minor. Their wari was on watercourse `NABCD' from which they were irrigating their land for the last more than 30 years. Respondent No.3, whose land is irrigated from watercourse `BCD' applied for change of warabandi before the Deputy Collector, Rori Division, Sirsa. The Deputy Collector vide order dated 26.6.1985 (Annexure P2) has made changes in the warabandi after hearing the petitioners and wari of Khata No.79 owned by the petitioners was placed after Khata No.58. The said order was set aside by the Divisional Canal Officer vide order dated 10.12.1985. Against the said order, respondent No.3 filed an appeal/revision before the Superintending Canal Officer, which was barred by limitation. The Superintending Canal Officer, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, condoned the delay and accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, while observing as under:- “Merit:- The level at point C is 644.5 and the level at point L is 644.3. The differences is not much. The Divisional Canal Officer has mentioned that area towards North is high. Unfortunately in a big area like 50 acres only five levels are shown which do not depict the nature of the land as a whole. As such the appeal of Shri Jagroop Singh is accepted and the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer is set aside and the decision of the Deputy Collector is upheld. However, it shall be open to the parties to have the case processed and decided under Section 17(b). The decision may be communicated.” I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the land of respondent No.3 could have been better irrigated without change in the warabandi and the Superintending Canal Officer without applying his mind has set aside the well reasoned order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer. It has also been argued that the appeal/revision filed by respondent No.3 before the Superintending Canal Officer was time barred and the said authority has wrongly condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merits. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the impugned orders, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the same. Under sub-section (6) of Section 55 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, the Superintending Canal Officer has been empowered to revise an order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer under sub-section (5) either suo motu or on an application made by the aggrieved party. However, it has been provided that no such application shall lie unless it is made within a period of thirty days from such an order. The said officer is empowered to condone the delay on the application filed by an aggrieved party explaining the delay. As far as condoning of the delay in filing the revision is concerned, Superintending Canal Officer was fully empowered to do so and once on the application given by a party the delay in filing the revision has been condoned, such order does not require any interference in the writ jurisdiction. As far as merit of the case is concerned, after hearing both the parties, the Superintending Canal Officer has passed the impugned order by taking into consideration the factual position on the spot. In my opinion, the canal authorities are having the expertise in such matters and it is for them to see how and in what manner the better irrigation can be achieved by changing the warabandis. This Court cannot go into such factual position in the writ jurisdiction. While passing the impugned order, the Superintending Canal Officer has left the matter open for both the parties to apply for the allotment of any new areas to a watercourse, if they are having any grouse that the existing outlet or a watercourse is not sufficient for irrigating their land. Thus, in my opinion, the impugned order does not require any interference in the writ jurisdiction. No merits. Dismissed. July 27, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE