IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.20118 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 22, 2011 BALWAN SINGH & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT:Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. SS Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. SS Godara, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 13.11.2009 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Superintending Canal officer, Bhakra Water Services Circle-I, Hisar. 2 The gist of the matter is that respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 55 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'), with the prayer that the lined/pucca water course had been damaged and washed away. The watercourse be declared as Civil Writ Petition No.20118 of 2009 2 unlined/kutcha watercourse. The Warabandi be changed after compensating the shareholders in regard to “Bharai” and “Jharai”. 3 Operative part of the impugned order reads as under:- “Revenue Missal, Khaka Plan and other connected record have been perused. Arguments of both the parties also considered at length. After going through the record and arguments of the parties it is found that complete lined watercourse has been converted into the kutcha watercourse. No doubt lining of the watercourse has been started again, but after the lining of some portion work has been stopped. So in the interest of natural justice, Deputy Collector is directed to provide both type of bharai & jharai i.e. kutcha watercourse and pucca watercourse. In this situation the shareholders who are getting the benefit of lined watercourse the bharai & jharai of lined watercourse should be given and where watercourses are unlined the norm of bharai & jharai of kutcha watercourse be adopted. Keeping in view above facts RP is partly accepted and decision of Divisional Canal Officer, Hansi Water Services Division, Hansi dated 11.10.2006 is modified. Decision be conveyed to the parties/concerned.” 4 It is a question of fact, which has been Civil Writ Petition No.20118 of 2009 3 determined by the authorities under the Act. Equities have been balanced by way of saying that the shareholders who are getting benefit of lined watercourse, they should be given the “Bharai” and “Jharai” of water of lined watercourse, and where the watercourse is unlined, the norm of “Bharai” and “Jharai” of unlined watercourse should be adopted. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioners has not drawn the attention of the court towards any mandatory rule, which has not been followed so as to cause prejudice to the rights of the petitioners. 6 In view of the above, in civil writ jurisdiction, no interference is called for. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 7 It goes without saying that, in case, the watercourse is lined, the petitioners would be at liberty to file an application, in the context of changed circumstances. February 22, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?