CWP No.9008 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9008 of 2008 Date of decision:08.09.2010 Ishwar Singh ..... Petitioner Versus Superintending Canal Officer, Yamuna Water Services Circle, Jind and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.Amit Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.4. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 23.08.2007, 19.10.2007 and 29.01.2008, passed by the Deputy Collector, Jind, Water Services Division, Jind, the Divisional Canal Officer, Jind and the Superintending Canal Officer, Jind, respectively. The petitioner filed an application for transfer of three acres of land falling in Khasra Nos.18/20 and Khasra No.32/1 and 2 from outlet RD- 22180/L to outlet RD No.24970/L. The petitioners request was accepted but alongwith his area, the area of Fateh Singh, respondent no.4 measuring 2 acres and the area of Jaswant Singh etc.was also transferred to RD 24970/L. A dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent no.4 with respect to the warabandi (turn of water). The petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Collector, praying that his 3 acres be allotted turn of CWP No.9008 of 2008 -2- water after Fateh Singh and before Tek Ram as per the order 19.07.1999 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer. The petitioner's request was declined on the ground that after transfer of additional area to the outlet the order dated 19.07.1999 has become irrelevant. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, pleading that if his turn of water is fixed at Sr.Nos.45 and 46 before Fateh Singh, he will have to give water to respondent no.4, Hardeva and Jaswant Kumar etc. requiring him to open and close his outlet five times, thereby adversely affecting irrigation to his land. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that turn of water has to be allotted on the principle of first come first serve. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, which was also dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute relating to the turn of water was settled in the year 1989 and thereafter in the year 1999 by providing, turn of water to the petitioner, after Fateh Singh. The allotment of additional land to the outlet, does not nullify these orders. The turn of water as assigned requires the petitioner to open and close his outlet five times thereby causing loss of about one hour, in the petitioner's turn of water. Counsel for the State of Haryana and counsel for the private respondents submit that with the allotment of additional area to the outlet the turn of water has to be changed. The canal authorities have therefore, rightly allotted turn of water in accordance with the established principle of first come first serve. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold in favour of the petitioner. The canal authorities CWP No.9008 of 2008 -3- have assigned clear and cogent reasons, while preparing the fresh turn of water. The Deputy Collector, who prepared the “warabandi” examined the entire record and only thereafter, fixed the petitioner's turn of water before Fateh Singh. The appellate authorities have examined the entire record and affirmed this finding. Allotment of additional land to an outlet, would necessarily require a change in the turn of water. The petitioner's land admittedly falls before the land of Fateh Singh. The petitioner's grievance that he should be allotted a turn of water after Fateh Singh, was therefore rightly rejected on the principle of first come first serve. The orders passed in 1989 and 1999 are redundant as with allocation of additional land belonging to the petitioner, respondent no.4 and Jaswant Singh etc. canal officers were required to prepare a fresh “warabandi”. The petitioner's plea that as his land is situated at five different places, he would have to open and close the outlet five times, can be addressed by granting liberty to approach the canal authorities, to consider the petitioner's grievance, within the framework of the new “warabandi.” As the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the petition is dismissed with the aforestated liberty, but with no order as to costs. 08.09.2010 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE