Civil Writ Petition No. 5005 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 5005 of 2010 Date of decision: 23rd February, 2011 Prabhu Dayal and others .......Petitioners Versus The Divisional Canal Officer and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Nara, Senior DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1to 3. Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 4 to 13. Ajai Lamba, J.(Oral) 1. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order, Annexure P-3, dated 1.07.2009 passed by respondent No. 2 viz. Superintending Canal Officer, and order, Annexure P-4, dated 30.12.2009 passed by respondent No. 3 viz. Chief Canal Officer. While the Divisional Canal Officer decided the issue in favour of the petitioners, the appellate authorities have taken a decision contrary to the plea of the petitioners while setting aside the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer. 2. Facts in brief are that an application was filed by the private respondents under Section 17 of the Haryana Canal and Civil Writ Petition No. 5005 of 2010 2 Drainage Act, 1974 for extension of water course coming from water Outlet R.D. 78400-L Dadri Disty. to points A1 to B1 so as to irrigate the land comprising in Rect. No. 37. 3. Before proceeding further, it needs mention that earlier the land of the petitioners and the private respondents was being irrigated from water Outlet R.D. 78400-L Dadri Disty. Subsequently, the land in village Kamod was being irrigated by way of provision of Outlet R.D.18580-T.C. Kamod Minor. Under the circumstances, there is a separate block of land/chak for village Kamod to be irrigated from 18580-T.C. Kamod Minor. The water course itself goes through the land of the petitioners shown in site plan Annexure P-6 in orange colour. These are the admitted facts. 4. The private respondents filed an application so as to extend the water course to irrigate land in the chak of water Outlet R.D.78400-L Dadri Disty., the water outlet however, passed through the land falling in chak being irrigated from water Outlet R.D.18580-T.C. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that since the water course has been provided out of the land of the petitioners and land of the petitioners is in another chak, it would not be in the public interest and in interest of peace and harmony. The land for water course has been provided by the petitioners. 6. Shri B.S.Nara, Executive Engineer, Bond Water Services Division, Bhiwani is present in Court for giving assistance. He admits that if the proposed provision for extension of water course was Civil Writ Petition No. 5005 of 2010 3 allowed, the land falling in Chak being irrigated from R.D.18580-T.C. Kamod Minor would have been utilised. He however, states that water course can be provided from the chak falling under command of R.D. 78400-L Dadri Disty. 7. Learned counsel for the private respondents contends that in case water course is provided so as to irrigate the land falling under Rect. No. 37, the respondents would have no grievance. 8. The order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer Annexure P-2 states that water course flowing from Kamod Minor namely water Outlet R.D.18580-T.C. would be used for the share holders of that outlet. 9. Considering the above, the petition is allowed. Orders Annexures P-3 and P-4 are hereby quashed. The Divisional Canal Officer shall ensure running of water from water channel/chak so as to irrigate Rect.37 out of land within the chak of water Outlet R.D.78400-L Dadri Disty. [AJAI LAMBA] JUDGE 23rd February, 2011 Shivani Kaushik 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?