CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16976 OF 2005 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 12, 2009 Harpal and another .....Petitioners VERSUS Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 ro 3. Mr. Arvind Rajotia, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 and 5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition is that new water outlet has been made functional without withdrawing the earlier one. Twenty Seven share holders made an application to respondent No.2, pleading that their area was not receiving proper irrigation from the existing outlet and prayed for splitting up of the existing outlet and for providing new outlet. This demand was found genuine and approved on 26.3.2001. Two appeal were filed against CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16976 OF 2005 :{ 2 }: the same before respondent No.3, which were allowed by common order on 28.4.2003. Chief Canal Officer, however, partly allowed appeal against this order on 26.8.2003 and new outlet was allowed for some area, besides holding that some existing area would continue to receive irrigation from the existing outlet. The petitioners allege that the private respondents deliberately produced an incorrect and incomplete site plan, Annexure P-1, to show that the water course `AB' has been dismantled and that irrigation of their area has been stopped. In fact, in view of the existing outlet having been split up, the area of the present parties was receiving irrigation from water course `CED' and water course `AB' had become defunct. Application for restoration of water course `AB' was made and is allowed. The matter came up before this Court but was remanded back for filing a revision, which the private respondents complied. This revision petition was allowed on 2.9.2005, which is now under challenge through the present writ petition. The only submission made before me is that incorrect and incomplete site plan was produced and that water course `AB' had been de-linked with the source of irrigation long back and, thus, restoration thereof would be wholly futile. Learned counsel for the respondents would, however, dispute this fact and would submit that water course `AB' is a pucca water course and is in existence. It is not a private water course as contended and as such, restoration thereof as ordered would not prejudice the petitioners in any manner. Counsel for the respondents would also point out that the petitioners and the answering respondents are co-sharers in the land occupied by the water course and the finding that water course and a Khal is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16976 OF 2005 :{ 3 }: exclusively owned by the petitioner is not correct. The counsel is also justified in submitting that while exercising writ jurisdiction, this Court does not sit in appeal. Such matters are required to be decided and determined by the concerned officials, who are expert in their field and impugned orders have been passed on the basis of situation existing on the ground. Otherwise also, counsel for the petitioners could not point out any prejudice, which would be caused to him due to the impugned order or other error of jurisdiction or law, which would require interference by this Court. I am, thus, not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction against the impugned order. Dismissed. January 12, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE