IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14564 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 14, 2011 Nazar Singh & others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Divisional Canal Officer, Rori Water Services Division, Sirsa & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. L.N. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate, for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in challenge to Orders dated 4.2.2008 (Annexure P-2); 5.2.2009 (Annexure P-3); and 17.6.2009 (Annexure P-4). 2. Respondent No.4 namely Balwant CWP No.14564 of 2009 [2] Singh son of Lachhman Ram filed an application under Section 18(2) of the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, 1974(for short, ‘the Act’), praying for transfer of 9.12 acres of land from chak of outlet RD42000-TL Asakhera Minor, to the chak of outlet RD77275-R Chautala Distributory, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. Draft scheme was prepared under Section 17 of the Act and published. Objections were invited. 3. After following the procedure provided by law and after hearing the concerned parties, the Divisional Canal Officer, Rori Water Services Division, Sirsa, vide Order dated 4.2.2008 (Annexure P-2), found that the land in question belonging to respondent No.4 (in this writ petition) was not receiving proper irrigation whereas water could be provided from the proposed outlet viz. RD77275-R Chautala Distributory, and therefore, the proposal of the respondent is approved. 4. The petitioners being aggrieved by order, Annexure P-2, filed appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, which has been dismissed vide Order dated 5.2.2009 (Annexure P-3). The petitioners filed further appeal before the Chief Canal Officer which has also been dismissed vide Order dated 17.6.2009, placed on record as Annexure P-4. CWP No.14564 of 2009 [3] 5. Before the Chief Canal Officer, the only ground taken on behalf of the petitioners was that in case land of respondent No.4 is transferred to the chak of outlet RD77275-R Chautala Distributory, then wari/ turn of the petitioners would be decreased in terms of time but the size of outlet would not be increased causing irrigation loss to their land. This argument has been dealt with by the Chief Canal Officer by holding that size of the outlet would be adjusted proportionately to the area of land added to the water outlet for irrigation and therefore, addition of the area shall not cause any deficit in irrigation to the land of the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while arguing the matter has again reiterated the same arguments by way of saying that irrigation of the land of the petitioners who are share holders of water from outlet RD77275-R Chautala Distributory would suffer on account of addition of land of the respondent to the chak. 7. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. 8. Infact, all the aspects of the matter have been taken into account by Divisional Canal Officer also while passing order Annexure CWP No.14564 of 2009 [4] P-2. Objections filed on behalf of the petitioners have been taken into account and it has been said in the order, Annexure P-2 that on addition of land of the respondent to the chak of RD77275-R Chautala Distributory, the size of outlet would be increased proportionately so that more water can be provided. It has further been taken into account that the person who owns land adjoining the land of respondent No.4, has sworn an affidavit that water course would be allowed through her land to enable irrigation of land of the respondent. 9. Even the Chief Canal Officer while dealing with the issue has considered the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners by clarifying that no adverse effect would be caused to irrigation to the land of the petitioners because the size of outlet would be adjusted proportionately. 10. In the face of such findings, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to justify the objections being raised to the addition of land of respondent No.4 to the chak of outlet RD77275-R Chautala Distributory. 11. I have also taken into account the equitable aspect of the matter. The land of respondent No.4 for the last six crops has been irrigated to the extent of 0.59 acres only. Thus, CWP No.14564 of 2009 [5] from the existing source viz. from water outlet RD42000-TL Asakhera Minor, the irrigation to the land of respondent No.4 has been negligible. If the land of respondent No.4 is put in the chak of outlet RD77275-R Chautala Distributory, the land of the respondent would get irrigation. 12. Considering the legal as well as equitable aspect of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any perversity or want of jurisdiction. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards violation of any mandatory provision so as to show that the impugned orders have been passed without following due process of law. No ground for judicial review of the orders passed by the authorities under the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act is made out. 14. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 14, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?