IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.21502 of 2011 Date of decision : 21.11.2011 Amritpal Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Superintending Canal Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 15.2.2011 and 9.8.2011. Their grievance is that their turn of water for irrigation purpose from the canal has been disturbed to their detriment. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that his turn of water has been reduced and serious prejudice has been caused to him. On due consideration of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders for the simple reason that it has been established on record that the water outlet to the fields of private respondents was dilapidated and was broken midway depriving them of the access to water. The Superintending Canal Officer has reasoned that the area under transfer is on the higher side from outlet Burji No.11025/L Mudki Rajwaha and that this land was not properly C.W.P.No.21502 of 2011 -2- irrigated through canal water. He has found that the land would be properly irrigated through canal water from outlet Burji No.96025/R Ditch Channel because the command of this land from outlet Burji No.11025/L Mudki Rajwaha is 1.51 ft. whereas the command of this land from outlet Burji No.96025/R Ditch Channel is 5.11 ft. He has further reasoned that the area under transfer is very less so there would be very less effect on the turn of water of the appellants i.e. petitioners herein, which will be to the tune of 0.74%. I am of the opinion that the technical e valuation having been made by the Superintending Canal Officer which reasoning is reflected in the impugned orders as well, the same do not suffer from any infirmity except for an exaggerated grievance of the petitioners on account of the turn being marginally reduced. Thus, there is no merit in the instant petition especially when no serious prejudice is manifest from the facts of the case. Dismissed. 21.11.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss