IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14297 of 2009 Date of decision : 18.9.09 Kaka Singh and Others ….. Petitioners Versus Superintending Canal Officer and Others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners. **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa Division, I.B. Jawaharke (respondent No.2) while passing the impugned order dated 18.9.2007 (Annexure P4) did not hear the petitioners. Besides, the Superintending Canal Officer, I.B. Circle, Patiala (respondent No.1) in terms of order dated 9.7.2009 (Annexure P6) has merely confirmed the said order without adverting to the facts. In any case, it is submitted that the water course as has now been carved out is not a ‘pucca’ water course. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the record as also the site plan (Annexure P3). It may be noticed that Kewal Singh (respondent No.3) sought change of the water course. On receipt of the case, a Scheme under Section 30-A(i) and 30-B(i) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (“Act” – for short) was prepared and published. CWP No. 14297 of 2009 [2] Kewal Singh (respondent No.3) on 26.3.2007 had filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, Canal Sub Division, Talwandi Sabo for approval regarding the transfer of the water course at points BCD as shown in the site plan (Annexure P3) to points BEF in Rectangle No.128 M, Field Nos.16, 17, 18, 19/1-2 on the Northern boundary and 128M/16 on the Eastern side. The Sub-Divisional Canal Officer in his report dated 20.7.2007 (Annexure P2) recommended for the transfer of the water course. According to the said report the water course BCD was running through the passage of Southern boundary in Rectangle No.128, Field Nos.12, 13 and it bifurcated Rectangle No.128, Field Nos.16, 17 in two parts. The applicant Kewal Singh (respondent No.3) and the share holders of the adjoining water course consented for the transfer of water course after taking it out from the passage and set up the same on one side. The position, therefore, is that according to the applicant Kewal Singh (respondent No.3), water course BCD was going through their land and it bifurcated his land. Therefore, it was prayed that the existing water channel which was at points BCD in the site plan (Annexure P3) be transferred and sanctioned at points BEF. The Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa Division, I.B. Jawaharke, Mansa (respondent No.2) vide order dated 18.9.2007 (Annexure P4) held that the demand of the applicant Kewal Singh (respondent No.3) was valid and acceptable because the water course which was approaching their ‘tuk’ had come in the way after demarcation and they felt difficulty in passing through that way and on transfer of this water channel, no objection from any side had been submitted. The said order has been upheld by the Superintending Canal Officer Patiala Circle, IB, Patiala (respondent No.1) vide order dated 9.7.2009 (Annexure P6). CWP No. 14297 of 2009 [3] The grievance of the petitioners that they were not heard while passing the order in the facts and circumstances of the present case is not of much significance. A person though has a right to be heard before an order adversely affecting his rights is passed, however, it would not be correct to say that for any and every violation of the right of hearing, which is a facet of the principles of natural justice the order that is passed is altogether void and ought to be set aside without further inquiry. The approach and test in such cases has always been whether the order has resulted in any prejudice to the person against whom it is passed. A perusal of the site plan (Annexure P3) which is a Photostat copy of a certified copy would show that the water course from points BCD would go through the land of Kewal Singh (respondent No.3). By having it at points BEF the water course would be on the Northern boundary of the land of Gurcharan Singh and Darshan Singh sons of Jagir Singh, besides on the Northern boundary of Gian Singh. This water course is through the land comprised in Rectangle No.128, Field Nos.16, 17, 18, 19/1 and 19/2. By making it from points BEF it comes on the Northern boundary of the said field numbers. The rights of the petitioners whose land is in Rectangle No.127 are, in no manner, affected and the water course insofar as the land of Nachhattar Singh and Malkeet Singh sons of Nazar Singh is concerned which is in Rectangle No.127, Field Nos.10, 11 and 07 is on the western boundary. Therefore, it is not shown as to how the rights of the petitioners are, in any manner, affected. Besides, by re-aligning the water course, no prejudice is shown to have been caused to either of the parties. The contentions of the petitioners that now aligned water course is not a ‘pucca’ water course, it would be appropriate to mention that in case the petitioners approach the canal authorities for the construction of ‘pucca’ water course, the same shall be considered. CWP No. 14297 of 2009 [4] Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, in case the petitioners approach the canal authorities for making the water course as ‘pucca’ one, the same shall duly be considered. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 18, 2009 amit