IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 10311 of 2010 Date of decision: 01.08.2011 Baldev Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Divisional Canal Officer, Harike Canal Division, Ferozepur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. D.K. Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. N.D.S. Mann, Addl. AG, Punjab for the State. Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 7. **** RANJIT SINGH J. Pursuant the direction issued by this Court on 04.05.2011, Divisional Canal Officer (DCO), Harike has come present. As per the counsel for the parties, the officer was summoned to confirm whether there is any loss to the petitioners in view of the direction issued by this Court earlier in CWP No. 8258 of 2007, which was disposed of on 25.05.2009. This Court had found that the order passed by the SCO was cryptic and did not deal with the submissions made before him by the respective parties. It was noticed that the SCO was bound to see in case this change, which is impugned, would cause any loss to the petitioners. It was also observed that in case the change leads to any loss to the petitioners, that aspect be taken into consideration by the SCO and he would Civil Writ Petition No. 10311 of 2010 -2- clarify as to how there would be an excess irrigation to the petitioners when some additional land is put or changed on this Mogha. The order passed by the SCO was set side. The SCO has now passed a fresh order, which is again impugned by the petitioners. In the impugned orders, SCO has clearly noticed that due to this change, there will be no shortage of water passes on the tails of I-R minor Golewala Rajbaha Burgi and, accordingly, he did not accept this argument of the petitioners. The petitioners has responded by placing on record Annexure P-6 to show that there would not be any loss as is made out from this annexure, which is prepared by the respondents otherwise. Counsel has made reference to nil as recorded against certain entries to show that there is no water in the tail. The DCO, who has present, is asked to peruse Annexure P-6 and confirm whether this will indicate any loss to the petitioners. He still maintains that there would not be any loss as is shown at tail. He has also confirmed before the Court that he is aware of the aspect of making statement before this Court and, in case, any wrong statement is made, he would be liable for the consequences. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. August 01, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE