LPA No. 537 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 537 of 2011 Date of Decision :09.08.2011 Sh. Adeshvir Singh & another .......... Appellants Versus State of Punjab & others ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the appllant. **** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL) The appellants prayer to shift irrigation of their land, measuring 1.60 acres, from one watercourse to another watercourse. All the authorities held that in view of the size of the outlet, the shifting is not possible. The learned Single Judge when dismissed CWP No. 23309 of 2010 filed by the appellants has noted as under :- “10. The application has been filed by the petitioners on purchase of 1.60 acres of land that abuts the land already owned by the petitioners. While major portion of the land of the petitioners is irrigated from water outlet 116447-R, the newly purchased small area of 1.60 acres is being irrigated from water outlet 112661-R. It therefore follows that the LPA No. 537 of 2011 -2- petitioners want to consolidate even the irrigation source, and therefore, the application has been filed for the convenience of the petitioners. 11. The authorities under the Act found that the size of outlet cannot be increased. On account of addition of the land, wari/ turn of the share holders would have to be decreased thereby adversely effecting rights of a large number of share holders. 12. Even considering the issue of better irrigation prospects, the authorities below have found that better irrigation cannot be provided to the added land of the petitioners if the area is transferred to the chak being irrigated by water outlet 116447-R. This becomes clear from perusal of order, Annexure P-2. The claim of the petitioners has been found to be not in the interest of better irrigation, and rather, if allowed, it would adversely effect the irrigation of land of other share holders of chak of land being irrigated from water outlet 116447-R Lambi Rajbaha. 13. In these circumstances, no jurisdiction error can be traced in the impugned orders. Ordinarily the authorities under the Act are best persons to assess the irrigation prospects and other circumvening circumstances before passing an order and are required to be accepted, and therefore, need to be interfered with only if the order is LPA No. 537 of 2011 -3- found to be arbitrary, perverse, without jurisdiction or passed for malafide reasons. None of the reasons can be traced in the impugned orders. We feel that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified. Canal authorities are the best Judge to say whether the proposed arrangement will be beneficial for the better irrigation or not. Unless it is perverse in law and on facts the order passed by the authorities cannot be interfered by this Court. No such perversity has been indicated. Dismissed (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE 09.08.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE