IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5839 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 30, 2010 Swaran Singh & others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Chetan Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 to 65. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Bathinda Canal Division, Bathinda, in proceedings under Sections 30-A and 30-B of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 (for CWP No.5839 of 2010 [2] short, ‘the Act’). Petitioners carried an appeal which has been dismissed vide other impugned Order dated 18.2.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by Superintending Canal Officer. 2. In brief, the facts are that respondent Nos.3 to 65 were irrigating their land from Daula Minor. In view of distance of Daula Minor and the location of land of the private respondents, their land was not getting proper irrigation. In such circumstances, respondent Nos.3 to 65 filed an application for providing irrigation from Peori Rajwaha by way of construction of a water course/ new Peori Minor. By virtue of this proposal, the distance would come down to 16 kilometres from earlier arrangement whereunder the distance to be covered by water, was 45 kilometres. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners filed objections to the scheme. Order, Annexure P-1 has been passed, also while taking into account the issue raised by the petitioners that irrigation to the land of the petitioners might be adversely effected. It has been recorded in Order Annexure P-1 holding that Peori Minor would be re-modelled. 4. Similar contention was made before Superintending Canal Officer. It has been held in CWP No.5839 of 2010 [3] regard to the apprehension of the petitioners that as much water as per the area which will be reduced from Daula Minor, that much water will be supplied to Peori Rajwaha by re-modelling it and by increasing its capacity through proposed Peori Minor. With that, irrigation to the land being irrigated by Peori Rajwaha tail will not be adversely affected. 5. Considering the fact that there would be no adverse effect on the quality of irrigation to the land of the petitioners, this Court does not find any substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a contention, however without foundation, that scheme was not published as per provisions of Sections 30-A and 30-B of the Act. It however transpires that the petitioners had filed objections. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been any material effect on the rights of the petitioners. 7. Providing irrigation is a specialised field which is best left to the authorities under the Act. The issue raised by the petitioners has been duly addressed and apprehension has been removed, as noted above. CWP No.5839 of 2010 [4] 8. No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out as the impugned orders do not call for judicial review. 9. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 30, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?