CWP No.17757 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17757 of 2008 Date of decision:06.10.2010 Mann Singh and others ..... Petitioners Versus Chief Canal Officer, Irrigation Department Sinchai Bhawan, Sector-5, Panchkula and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3 & 6. Mr.S.S.Malik, Advocate for respondents no.4 and 5. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 02.09.2008, passed by the Chief Canal Officer, Panchkula. Counsel for the petitioners submits that canal authorities have wrongly allocated land belonging to respondents no.4 to 6, to the petitioners outlet. The private respondents have failed to prove that the existing arrangement, in any manner detrimental to their rights. It is further argued that the Chief Canal Officer heard the case on 01.08.2008 but pronounced the order on 02.09.2008, after his retirement on 31.08.2008. Counsel for the private respondents and counsel for the State of Haryana submit that the original record reveals that the Chief Canal Officer appended his signatures but the endorsement at the end of order bears the date 02.09.2008. It is further submitted that as the petitioners have failed to prove any grievance on merits, the writ petition should be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order CWP No.17757 of 2008 -2- and the original record. A perusal of the original record discloses that arguments were heard and orders were reserved on 01.08.2008. The Chief Canal Officer appended his signatures on the original order before his retirement but the endorsement, at the end of the order bears the date 02.09.2008. The Chief Canal Officer had no reason to append signatures after his retirement. Even otherwise, the request of the private respondents for transfer of their area was allowed by the Divisional Canal Officer and though set aside by the Superintending Canal Officer was restored by the Chief Canal Officer. The petitioners have failed to argue or point out any error of law in the impugned order. Dismissed. 06.10.2010 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE