IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1501 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 9.11.2010 Maan Singh …..Appellant versus Chief Canal Officer and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 6.10.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing CWP No.17757 of 2008 filed by the appellant, challenging an order passed by the Chief Canal Officer, reversing an order passed by the Superintendent Canal Officer. It is apparent from the records that on an application moved by respondent No.4, his area was included in the command area of the water outlet from which the petitioners were getting irrigation. His application was allowed. The petitioners went in appeal, which was accepted. Respondent No.4 went in second appeal before the Chief Canal Officer, who reversed the same vide the impugne order in the writ petition, by observing as under:- “Both the parties were heard in detail and relevant record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record reveals that the area in question is 18 killa away from the LPA No.1501 of 2010(O&M) existing source as compared to 3 killa from the proposed source. In the circumstances the demand of the appellant seems to be justified and thereafter 9.37 acres area is ordered to be transferred from outlet RD 135500-L Petwar Dy to outlet R 4465-L, New Sultanpur minor. Appeal is accepted and decision of the Superintending Canal Officer, BWS Circle, Hisar is set aside.” It was found as a matter of fact that by adding land of the petitioners in the command area of the water outlet of the appellant, no loss will be caused to them. Even at the time of arguments counsel for the appellant has failed to show us as to how irrigation of the appellant is going to be affected by increase in the command area of the water outlet. It is contention of counsel for the appellant that the Chief Canal Officer retired on 31.8.2008, however, and the order was passed on 2.9.2008. This plea was specifically noticed and taken care of by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order and it was rejected by observing as under:- “I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the original record. A perusal of the original record discloses that arguments were heard and orders were reserved on 01.08.2008. The Chief Canal Officer appended his signatures on the original order before his retirement but the endorsement, at the end of the order bears the date 02.09.2008. The Chief Canal Officer had no reason to append signatures after his retirement. Even otherwise, the request of the private respondents for transfer of their area was allowed by the Divisional Canal Officer and though set 2 LPA No.1501 of 2010(O&M) aside by the Superintending Canal Officer was restored by the Chief Canal Officer. The petitioners have failed to argue or point out any error of law in the impugned order. Dismissed.” We are satisfied with the finding given. Order appears to have been passed before retirement, only an endorsement to the order was made on 2.9.2008. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 09.11.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 3