IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6662 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: April 27, 2011 Jaspal Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS The Deputy Collector, Lehal Division, IB Patiala & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5. Mr. R.V.S. Chugh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 26.8.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Lehal Division, Irrigation Branch, Patiala; and Order dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by Superintendent, Canal Officer, Patiala Circle CWP No.6662 of 2010 [2] Irrigation Branch, Patiala. 2. Petitioner, Jaspal Singh, filed an application before Deputy Collector, Lehal Division, praying for shifting of Naka from Point A to Point B in reference to site plan, Annexure P-1, on the ground that water course has been provided from Point A from the field of the petitioner along the road and goes to irrigate the field of private respondent shown in Yellow colour and beyond. Accumulation of water is causing damage to the field of the petitioner. 3. Deputy Collector, vide Order dated 1.4.2009 (Annexure P-3) allowed the application while holding that field of the private respondent be irrigated from B from the second culvert towards Northern side from under the bridge. 4. Respondent No.4 carried an appeal that, however, has been allowed by Divisional Canal Officer vide Order dated 26.8.2009 (Annexure P-4). The appeal has been allowed while holding that the order passed by Deputy Collector is not in accordance with the situation existing at the spot. The order is not in the interest of better irrigation because the private respondent would suffer loss. It has been held that as per the spot, the land of the private respondent is CWP No.6662 of 2010 [3] at a higher level than the water course and therefore, irrigation to the land of the private respondent would not be possible. 5. Petitioner carried an appeal to Superintendent, Canal Officer. The Superintendent, Canal Officer, vide Order dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure P-5) has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the official respondents, on the strength of the written statement, has argued that since 1975, field of the private respondent is being irrigated from Point A. A permanent warabandi was fixed in the year 1985. No loss to the crop in the field of the petitioner has been caused, as alleged by him in his petition. 7. It has also been stated that the ground level of the field of the private respondent is 2 feet higher than the point where the water would be discharged and therefore, irrigation to the field of the private respondent would not be possible. 8. The said factual position is further endorsed from the reply filed on behalf of the private respondent, and in particular, Annexure R-4/3, that reads as under:- “Regarding the above said subject and file received in reference to your order while complying with the order the CWP No.6662 of 2010 [4] levels of Pullies and fields were got inspected from J.E. Karipur. At the spot Bed level of pulli at point “A” is 716.38 and Bed level of pulli at point “B” is 715.61 and level of field is 716.54. for compliance of the order and for further action this file is being returned to you. Sd/- Sub Divisional Officer Canal Sub Division Budhlada.” 9. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for. Collectively considering, there is no damage to the field of the petitioner. If the application of the petitioner is allowed, the land/ field of the private respondent shall not get any irrigation. 10. No ground for judicial review of the impugned orders is made out. 11. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) April 27, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?