CWP No.13542 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.13542 of 2006 Date of Decision: 14.9.2010 Jasbir .....Petitioner Vs. Chief Canal Officer, L.C.U., HID, Panchkula and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.Khanna, Addl.A.G. Hayana, for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. R.M.Singh, Advocate for respondents no.4,5 and 7. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 2.5.2006 and 8.3.2001, passed by the Chief Canal Officer, L.C.U., HID, Panchkula and the Superintending Canal Officer,Yamuna Water Services Circle, Bhiwani. Tejpal Singh etc. filed an application under the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 for alteration of the alignment of a running water course ABC. A scheme was prepared and published in accordance with the provisions of the Act and after service of notice and hearing the parties, the alignment was changed from `ABC' to `ADEFC'. Karan Singh etc. filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Superintending Canal Officer and the water course `ABC' was restored, on the ground that the new water course` CWP No.13542 of 2006 2 ADEFC' has three curves and would suffer from frequent chocking being close to a `Tibba' and the sandy terrain of the water course. Karan Singh etc. filed an appeal before the Chief Canal Officer. The petitioner also filed a separate appeal. Karan Singh etc. withdrew their appeal, whereas the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Divisional Canal Officer rightly changed the alignment of the water course to `ADEFC', as this alignment is on the border of the petitioner's field, whereas the alignment `ABC' bifurcates the petitioner's land. It is submitted that the mere fact that the alignment `ABC' has been in existence for long, is irrelevant as there is no evidence on record to support the finding that the new alignment would suffer from chocking, in view of the curves and sandy terrain. It is further submitted that as two water courses pass through the petitioner's land, the proposed alignment is just and equitable. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that a similar prayer made by the petitioner's father was rejected on 5.4.1999 by the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhiwani Lining Circle, MITC, Bhiwani. Furthermore, as the petitioner did not participate in proceedings before the Divisional Canal Officer or the Superintending Canal Officer, he had no right to file an appeal before the Chief Canal Officer. It is also argued that as Karan Singh etc. withdrew their appeal, the Chief Canal Officer, rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and the site plan appended with the petition. A bare perusal of the site plan establishes that the water course `ABC' travels in a straight line, whereas the proposed water course `ADEFC' take a circuitous route CWP No.13542 of 2006 3 adversely affecting irrigation to the right holders. The petitioner's argument that the water course `ABC' bifurcates his land, though true, is insufficient to accept the plea for change of the alignment as the Superintending Canal Officer has recorded a finding of fact that the alignment `ADEFC' would choke the water course in view of its location near a `Tibba' and the sandy terrain of the water course. The petitioner has not adduced any material to suggest that this finding is incorrect. It would also be necessary to point out that a similar request made by the petitioner's father, though during the lining of the water course, was rejected by the Superintending Canal officer on 5.4.1999. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of law or of jurisdiction, the writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 14.9.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE