IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.3399 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 10, 2011 BADAN SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. JP Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Vide order dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure P-3), Divisional Canal Officer, Pundri Water Services Division, Kaithal, on the basis of facts existing at the spot, decided that since the land of the petitioner falls on the head of the outlet, therefore, he deserves the right of first Wari and, thereafter, the Wari be fixed in respect of the land of other shareholders. 2 Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services Circle, Kaithal, vide order dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-4), on the application of Dal Singh son of Ram Kishan, has set aside the order (Annexure P-3), while holding that Dal Singh son of Ram Kishan has been getting Wari at Serial No.1 for the last 50 years Civil Writ Petition No.3399 of 2010 2 and, therefore, the arrangement should not be upset. 3 On consideration of site plan (Annexure P-1), the following order was passed on 25.4.2011:- “Prima facie, from the site plan, it is evident that the land of the petitioner comes first and is upstream and, thereafter, land of respondent No.3 comes and, yet, Wari has been given first to respondent No.3. Adjourned to 10.05.2011, for arguments. Divisional Canal Officer, Pundri, Water Services Division, Kaithal, shall remain present in court on the adjourned date with complete record and justification as to under what circumstances respondent No.3-Dal Singh has been given Wari first. Copy of the order be given under the signatures of the Bench Secretary.” 4 Shri Arvind Kaushik, Executive Engineer/Divisional Canal Officer, Pundri Water Services Division, Kaithal, is present in Court and has assisted the Court. 5 On a reference to site plan (Annexure P-1), Shri Kaushik has not been able to dispute the fact that the land of the petitioner falls first and, therefore, at the first instance, land of the petitioner is required to be irrigated, as per the Irrigation Manual. 6 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7 There appears to be no justification in giving the first turn of water to the land of Ram Kishan/Dal Singh, as the water outlet opens in the land of the petitioner. 8 In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Civil Writ Petition No.3399 of 2010 3 9 Order (Annexure P-4) is hereby quashed and order (Annexure P-3) is hereby upheld. May 10, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?