IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.15495 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 21, 2011 PARKASH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT:Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate, for Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. SS Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anil Ghangas, Advocate, for respondent No.3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Challenge in this Civil Writ Petition is to order dated 23.10.2008 (Annexure P-1), order dated 26.2.2009 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 23.6.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by the authorities under the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974. The shareholders of water outlet 18744-R Masudpur Distributory, which irrigates the land in villages Rakhikhas, Mirchpur and Milakpur, Tehsil Narnaund, District Hisar, pleaded before the authorities that Warabandi from Civil Writ Petition No.15495 of 2009 2 the outlet be not prepared village-wise. Rather, it be prepared field-wise (Kurewise) so that the fields can be irrigated as per turn of water, in relation to location of fields. Vide order (Annexure P-1), Deputy Collector, Water Service Division, Hansi, allowed the Wari/turn to be fixed, as per the said principle, as is made evident from para-1 of order (Annexure P-1). Certain shareholders, however, filed an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, which has been dismissed. Order of the appellate authority records that the site was inspected on 26.2.2009. The Wari has been fixed as per principles of Warabandi. Sadhu Ram and other shareholders filed a petition before the Superintending Canal Officer, which has been dismissed vide order (Annexure P-3). In order (Annexure P-3), it has been noticed that the orders passed are based on inspection report and no interference therein was called for. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out violation of any mandatory provision, which has caused manifest injustice to the rights of the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned orders indicates that the principles of Warabandi have been followed insomuch as location of field has been given preference dehors the Civil Writ Petition No.15495 of 2009 3 villages. It has not been made out that interest of irrigation has suffered. No ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. February 21, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?