IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14544 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 10, 2011 Mohinder Singh & others ...Petitioners Versus Superintending Canal Officer, Ludhiana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.J.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondent No.3 (wrongly mentioned as respondent No.2 in the list of dates and events) moved an application for withdrawing his 25 kanals 14 marlas area from outlet No.18674/TR Rajbaha Dhaipai and for adding the same to outlet No.18674-TF Dhaipai minor. Divisional Canal Officer, after considering the reports of Ziledar and SDO, transferred the area as prayed for. As per the petitioners, this was done without preparing a draft scheme as per Section 30-A of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (for short “the Act”) and without inviting any objections as per Section 30-B of the Act. According to the counsel, this was a sine-qua-non for approval of the scheme. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by respondent No.1 on 19.1.2011. The petitioners make a grievance that they were condemned unheard, besides pleading violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act. They have accordingly approached this court through the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners has made very elaborate submissions. He has referred to the provisions of Section 30-A of the Act to urge that the objections were not invited. He has also referred Civil Writ Petition No.14544 of 2011 :2: to the rules, which regulate the manner in which the objections are to be invited and also to the provisions of Section 30-B of the Act. To me, it appears to be a simple case of transfer of some negligible area of 3.21 acres from one outlet to another. The plea of respondent No.3 was that the water was not reaching to his holdings from outlet 18674/TR Dhaipai, whereas watercourse from outlet 18674/TF Dhaipai minor reaches to his area and 2 kanals falling near to the area under transfer, is also receiving canal irrigation from this outlet. It is specifically noticed that addition of this area at outlet 18674-TF will not adversely affect the turn of water of the petitioners. The Divisional Canal Officer had upheld the prayer and that is how the Superintending Canal Officer was approached and has dealt with this issue in the manner as noticed above. A perusal of the impugned order would clearly show that an opportunity of hearing apparently was granted to the effected parties. The submissions, which are made before me, are not found to be recorded or noticed in the impugned order. Rather, the Superintending Canal Officer has noticed that the appellants failed to raise any solid argument in their favour. He has also noticed that all the right-holders of outlet 18674/TF Dhaipai minor have made a written statement for addition of 3.21acres area in the chak of their outlet and that they have no objection to it. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The objection that Scheme was required to be prepared and published etc. under Sections 30-A and 30-B of the Act was not pleaded before the Superintending Engineer as it is not found recorded. Whether for such a minor change, there was requirement of framing a scheme and following the procedure for issuing a notice would be an issue. Whether interference on this ground is called for when not raised in appeal is another issue requiring consideration. Even otherwise, if there was such a requirement, it will not be appropriate for a writ court to go into these issues, specially so when there is no loss or prejudice suffered by the petitioners. It is for the authorities, who are at spot and are concerned with better irrigation for every body to see all these aspects. The petitioners have not Civil Writ Petition No.14544 of 2011 :3: been able to show as to what prejudice would be caused by transfer of this minor area of 3.21 acres on an outlet. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. August 10, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE