Civil Writ Petition No. 866 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Civil Writ Petition No. 866 of 2007 Date of decision: 20.11.2008 Puran Singh and others ........Petitioners Versus Chief Canal Officer and others ......Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. J S Thind, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Surinder Kumar Bishnoi,DAG, Haryana for respondents No. 1 to 3 Ms Kamal Preet, Advocate for respondent No. 4 -.- J.S.Khehar , J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to the factual position depicted in the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer dated 24.08.2005 (Annexure P-5), where-from he has, inter alia, highlighted the fact, that respondent No. 4 is receiving irrigation to the extent of 193.4% from the existing outlet 112400/L Sheranwali Distributory. It is pointed out, that there is no justification in shifting the outlet of respondent No. 4 because respondent no. 4 is receiving sufficient irrigation from the existing outlet. He also vehemently contends, that the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer dated 01.12.2005 (Annexure P-6), as well as, the order passed by the Chief Canal Officer Civil Writ Petition No. 866 of 2007 2 dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure P-8) do not take into consideration the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter. When confronted with the factual position brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 acknowledges, that the factual position expressed hereinabove as noticed in the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, was not taken into consideration either by the Superintending Canal Officer or by the Chief Canal Officer. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 accordingly states, that she has no objection, if the orders passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, as well as, the Chief Canal Officer (Annexures P-6 and P-8, respectively), are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Superintending Canal Officer, to pass a fresh order, after hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties, by duly taking into consideration the factual position noticed in the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer dated 24.08.2005 to the effect, that respondent No. 4, is already receiving irrigation to the extent of 193.4% from the existing outlet RD 112400/L. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 01.12.2005 (Annexure P-6) and dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure P-8), are hereby set aside. The matter in hand is remanded back to respondent No. 2, for re- adjudication. The entire factual aspect of the matter shall be taken into consideration, including the one pointed out hereinabove after affording the rival parties an opportunity of hearing. Parties are directed to appear before the Superintending Canal Officer (Respondent No. 2) either in person or through counsel on Civil Writ Petition No. 866 of 2007 3 22.12.2008. Status quo shall be maintained till the disposal of the matter by respondent No. 2. Order dasti on payment of usual charges. Disposed of accordingly. [J.S.Khehar] Judge [Nirmaljit Kaur] Judge November 20, 2008 mohan