Civil Writ Petition No. 21223 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 21223 of 2008 Date of Order: 5th January, 2011 Jagdish Chander ....Petitioner Versus Divisional Canal Officer etc. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. S.S.Godara, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 to 4 Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for respondent no.5. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside orders dated 08.05.2008, 10.07.2008, 28.11.2008, passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra W/S Circle, Sirsa, the Deputy Collector, Rori Water Services Division, Sirsa and the Chief Canal Officer/BWSU, Irrigation Department, Haryana, Panchkula, respectively. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.5 filed an application for transfer of his land measuring 7.33 acres to outlet no.16535/L Odhan Minor from outlet No.19050/L Odhan Minor on the ground that path 'GHI' is causing hindrance to irrigation to his fields. Civil Writ Petition No. 21223 of 2008 -2- The petitioner opposed the application by asserting that respondent no.5 is receiving adequate irrigation from the existing outlet. The Divisional Canal Officer rejected the application. Respondent no.5 filed an appeal. The Superintending Canal Officer allowed the appeal though by passing a non-speaking order, without considering the factual position but by holding that a landowner is the best judge of irrigation to his land. The petitioner filed a revision and despite pendency of the revision, the Deputy Collector sanctioned a new warabandi (turn of water). The Chief Canal Officer eventually dismissed the revision. It is further argued that, in the year 1989, respondent no.5 was getting irrigation from outlet no.14525/L Odhan Minor through water course 'E & F'. Respondent no.5 filed an application for transfer of his land from this outlet to outlet no.20265/L Odhan Minor on the ground that nearly 100-150 acres of land was getting irrigation from this outlet. The petitioner did not oppose this prayer as respondent no.5 is a member of their family. Respondent no.5's land was, therefore, transferred to outlet no.20265/L Odhan Minor on 03.02.1989. In the year, 2000, outlet no.14525/L Odhan Minor was bifurcated into two outlets, namely, 14525/L and 16535/L Odhan Minor. Similarly outlet no.20265/L was bifurcated into two outlets, namely, outlet No.20265/L Odhan Minor and outlet no.19050/L Odhan Minor. Respondent no.5 began to irrigate his land from water course B, C and D without any hindrance. Despite these facts, the Superintending Canal Officer and the Chief Canal Officer have allowed respondent no.5 to change his outlet without considering the rights of the petitioner, the fact that respondent no.5 has not Civil Writ Petition No. 21223 of 2008 -3- established that irrigation to his land is adversely affected. Counsel for the State of Haryana and counsel for respondent no.5 submit that findings recorded by the Superintending Canal Officer and the Chief Canal Officer do not call for interference as the relief granted to respondent no.5 would enable him to consolidate his turn of water and receive better irrigation for his land. It is further submitted that water course BCD does not abut respondent no.5's land. It is also argued that as the petitioner has failed to plead or prove any prejudice to his rights, the writ petition should be dismissed as it is an attempt, by a relative, to settle personal scores. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The Divisional Canal officer rejected the prayer, made by respondent no.5, for transfer of land measuring 7.33 acres to outlet No.16535/L by holding that his land is receiving proper irrigation and more over there is huge opposition. The Superintending Canal Officer reversed this order by holding that a path prior to the land of respondent no.5, causes hindrance to irrigation to his field. The Chief Canal Officer perused the record and upheld the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer. The plea raised by the petitioner that respondent no.5 has repeatedly changed his outlet is neither relevant nor germane to the issue in hand. The petitioner has failed to place on record any material to establish that the transfer of 7.33 acres belonging to respondent no.5 would adversely affect his rights much less lead to a reduction in irrigation to his land. While rejecting respondent Civil Writ Petition No. 21223 of 2008 -4- no.5's plea, the Divisional Canal Officer apparently gave more weightage to the opposition by the petitioner, who is admittedly related to respondent no.5 than to the actual situation on the ground. The Superintending Canal Officer found that there is a hindrance to respondent no.5 in irrigating his land and therefore, accepted his prayer. The plea that the water course BCD abuts the land of respondent no.5 has been rebutted by the official respondents. It appears that opposition to transfer of respondent No.5's land is occasioned more by deteriorating relations between close relatives than on facts or legal principle. In the absence of any error of jurisdiction or of law, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. January 5th ,2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE