CWP No.1023 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.1023 of 2006 Date of Decision: 1.9.2010 Surjit Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 to 3. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 26.5.2005 and 29.5.2002, passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhand Canal Circle, Ludhiana and the Divisional Canal Officer, Sidhawan Canal Division, Ludhiana, directing the transfer of 12.22 acres from outlet RD 7765-R to outlet RD 9765-R 2L Zira Minor Village Lehra Rohi. Counsel for the petitioners submits that a similar request for transfer of land was rejected by the Superintending Canal Officer on 18.10.1988 by holding that private respondents are receiving proper irrigation from the existing outlet. In view of this finding, canal authorities could not have directed the shifting of the outlet without recording a CWP No.1023 of 2006 2 statistical finding that private respondents are not receiving adequate water from the existing outlet. It is further submitted that as allocation of 12.22 acres to the existing outlet would necessarily affect the rights of the existing co-sharers, the impugned orders should be set aside. Despite service, no one is present on behalf of respondents no.4 to 6, nor have they filed any reply. Counsel for the State of Punjab, however, submits that in view of changed circumstances after 1988, particularly the reduction of commanded area, the allocation of a mere 12.22 acres would not adversely affect the rights of existing shareholders. I have heard counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the State of Punjab and have perused the impugned orders. While transferring land from one outlet to another canal authorities, in addition to other factors, are required to consider : (a) Whether irrigation from the existing outlet is inadequate and (b) Whether allocation of land to the other outlet would adversely affect the rights of existing shareholders. A perusal of the impugned orders discloses that neither the Divisional Canal Officer nor the Superintending Canal Officer has recorded any such finding. In addition, the order dated 18.10.1988, passed by the then Superintending Canal Officer, rejecting a similar prayer made by the private respondents, has been ignored on the ground of changed circumstances without making reference to the changed circumstances. In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is allowed, the orders dated 26.5.2005 and 29.5.2002 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Divisional Canal Officer, Sidhawan Canal Division, Ludhiana, to decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law, after CWP No.1023 of 2006 3 taking into consideration the observations recorded in the preceding paragraph. Parties are directed to appear before the Divisional Canal Officer, Sidhawan Sirhind Canal Division, Ludhiana, on 8.10.2010. 1.9.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE