IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15212 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 05, 2011 Ramail Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Superintendent Engineer, Upper Bari Doab Canal Circle, Amritsar & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 and 5. None for respondent No.6. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 15.10.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by Divisional Officer CWP No.15212 of 2009 [2] (Canal), Gurdaspur Division Abdan, Gurdaspur; and Order dated 27.6.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Superintending Engineer (Canal), Upper Bari Doab, Canal Area, Amritsar. 2. The gist of the issue is that respondent No.4, Ajaib Singh filed an application that khal had been demolished by the petitioner thereby adversely effecting the irrigation of land belonging to respondent Nos.4 and 5 namely, Ajaib Singh and Gurdev Singh. An enquiry was conducted by the Divisional Officer (Canal). Enquiry report has been placed on record as Annexure P-4 on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance to say that application under Section 30FF of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 (for short, ‘the Act’) was recommended not to be allowed. 3. Gist of the report of the Divisional Officer (Canal) is that land of village Ghesal that is at issue, was being fed for irrigation from outlet of Burji No.88-R. The said water channel however had been closed and thereafter the land of village Ghesal was being fed from Burji No.80R and Burji No.2500R. The authority has further concluded that on spot inspection, land of the petitioner was found being irrigated and therefore, the application filed on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 under CWP No.15212 of 2009 [3] Section 30FF of the Act was dismissed. 4. The Superintending Engineer (Canal), Amritsar, considered the issue in the impugned order Annexure P-5 and has recorded that on the basis of record and site plan, it was found that khal, indeed, had been demolished by the petitioner. The authority went to the spot and perceived the fact of demolished khal in the presence of both the sides. Even the level of land was seen so as to assess whether better irrigation would be provided to the land of respondent Nos.4 and 5 through the khal that had been demolished by the petitioner. Considering all the relevant factors, it has been concluded that irrigation of the land of respondent Nos.4 and 5 could be better done if the demolished khal is restored. 5. During arguments, the site plan has been referred to in extenso and on consideration of the same, I find that if the irrigation of the land of the petitioner is allowed through Points ABC i.e. demolished khal, via Points DEF, the water channel would be shorter as compared to the water channel in alternate via Points L & M. 6. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not even been able to justify a longer and zig zag path of the alternate khal. CWP No.15212 of 2009 [4] 7. Considering the fact that the Superintending Engineer (Canal) has considered the aspect of better irrigation coupled with the fact that khal had been demolished by the petitioner, I find no reason to interfere in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The impugned orders infact mention that Sardar Ramail Singh and Baldev Singh sons of Charan Singh admit the fact that they had demolished the khal. There being a basis for recording the findings of facts, the impugned orders do not call for interference in judicial review. 8. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 05, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?