L.P.A. No.1693 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.1693 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 Mohinder Singh and others …APPELLANT VERSUS Superintending Canal Officer, Ludhiana and others …RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- PRESENT: Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate, for the appellants. … SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.14544 of 2011) filed by the appellants challenging the orders of the canal authorities transferring negligible area of 3.21 acres from one outlet to another, has been dismissed. Generally from one outlet near- about 500 acres of land is being irrigated. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has found that because of a minor change in the area, no loss or prejudice has been caused to the appellants. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the impugned order as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities. L.P.A. No.1693 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Before the learned Single Judge and before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that while passing the impugned order and making the aforesaid change the canal authorities have not followed the provisions of Section 30-B of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), i.e., the objections were not invited and considered before finalizing the scheme. In this case, change in the area was made by the canal authorities on the request of respondent No.3, who was not getting the water to his holdings from outlet No.18674/TR Dhaipai, which was found to be genuine, his holding was attached with outlet No.18674/TF Dhaipai. Undisputedly, at the time of passing of the impugned order, the appellants were heard. It has been further found mentioned in the order that after receiving the report from the Ziledar and after following the procedure, the case for transfer of the area from one outlet to another was sent to the Divisional Canal Officer for approval of the scheme, which was duly approved after hearing the parties. Undisputedly, the Divisional Canal Officer has been empowered under Section 30-A of the Act to prepare a Draft Scheme to provide alteration of any watercourse or re-allotment of areas reserved for one outlet to another. According to Section 30-B of the Act, the Divisional Canal Officer, after considering the objections filed by an aggrieved person, may approve, modify or reject the proposed Draft Scheme. In this case, it has been stated in the impugned order that the order of transfer was approved after hearing the parties and considering the objections. In these facts and circumstances of the case and particularly L.P.A. No.1693 of 2011 (O&M) -3- keeping in view the fact that a very small area has been transferred, which has not been causing any prejudice to the appellants, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order and the orders passed by the canal authorities, which are just and reasoned orders passed in the best interest of irrigation. No merits. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 13, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE