CWP No.7127 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.7127 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.4.2010 Gurnam Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. Superintending Canal officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the petitioners. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 26.6.2008 and 5.3.2010, passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division, Abohar and the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur. Respondent no.3 applied for allocation of 3.62 acres of his land to out let no.138670-L Arniwala minor and also prayed that his uncommanded area of 2.4 acres be made commanded. The Divisional Canal Officer accepted the request, rejected the objections raised by the petitioners and other co-sharers. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Superintending Canal Officer. Counsel for the petitioners submits that shifting of land from one outlet to another and a prayer for converting uncommanded area to the commanded area are separate causes of action that could not have been CWP No.7127 of 2010 2 included in a single application. It is further submitted that canal authorities have ignored that allocation of the private respondents' land to the petitioners' outlet, would adversely affect irrigation to their land. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and find no reason to accept their prayer. The argument that the respondents should have filed separate applications is legally untenable, as all disputes with respect to irrigation between the same parties, can and should be included in a single application. The argument that allocation of private respondents' land would affect irrigation to the petitioners fields, remains unsubstantiated by reference to any material, statistical or otherwise. It would be necessary to mention that every outlet has a 10% excess capacity and only where allocation of additional land exceeds 10%, may the rights of other land owners be adversely affected. In the absence of any evidence that the petitioners right to receive irrigation has been adversely affected, the present petition is dismissed. 22.4.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE