CWP No.7750 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.7750 of 2005 Date of Decision : 22.3.2010 Sukhbir Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana and others .....Respondents ... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present : Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondents no.3 to 8. RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 7.4.2005 and 27.10.2004/9.11.2004 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana and the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot. Assa Singh etc., respondents no.3,7, 8 and other share holders filed an application praying that as their land is not adequately irrigated from outlet no.11778-L Chahal Minor, the outlet be split into two and a new outlet be sanctioned for 374/345 acres at 12630-L Chahal Minor. The applicants pleaded that in view of the level of their land, it can only be irrigated after the water course is full to the brim, but when the water course is full, the petitioners, who have affixed a wooden plank at Khasra No.1020, remove the wooden plank leading to an overflow of water, thereby depriving the applicants of adequate irrigation. The petitioners CWP No.7750 of 2005 2 raised objections by asserting that the allegations are malafide, as the applicants land is adequately irrigated by the existing arrangement. The Divisional Canal Officer, after a considered appraisal of the facts held that as private respondents are unable to effectively irrigate their land from the existing outlet, the outlet should be split into two and a new outlet no.12630-L Chahal Minor be constructed, at the expense of the private respondents. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal. The Superintending Canal Officer dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer. Counsel for the petitioners submits that with the sanction of the new outlet, irrigation to the petitioners lands is adversely affected, as a part of their land has been retained on the old outlet, whereas the other part has been transferred to the new outlet. The petitioners would, therefore, have to take two turns of water, thereby causing immense hardship and loss of irrigation. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that orders passed by canal authorities have been implemented and the new outlet is functioning since 2005. Even otherwise, the topography of the land makes it imperative that the outlet be split into two. It is argued that merely because some part of the petitioners land is to be irrigated from the new outlet, would not give rise to an inference that irrigation is adversely affected. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and carefully considered the arguments addressed by counsel for the parties. The opinion of canal authorities about adequacy of irrigation, CWP No.7750 of 2005 3 splitting of outlets, excavation of water courses, allotment of waris etc. are best left to their technical competence, except where the orders are arbitrary, capricious or violative of any law. The petitioners grievance that with the splitting of the outlet, their land would receive water from two outlets, thereby adversely affecting irrigation to their land, cannot be accepted, in the absence of any statistical foundation for this argument. Admittedly, the new outlet has been in operation for the last five years but the petitioners have not placed any material on record to infer any adverse affect to the irrigation of their land. In the absence of any material to suggest that the orders passed by canal authorities are arbitrary, perverse or contrary to law, the present petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 22.3.2010 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE