CWP No.8756 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8756 of 2008 Date of decision:16.07.2010 Ajmer Singh and another ...... Petitioners VERSUS Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present: Mr.P.K.Ganga, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.Ashok Jindal, Advocate for respondents no.4 and 5. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA.J (Oral) The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 22.11.2006, 18.04.2007 and 29.11.2007, passed by the Deputy Collector, Bathinda Canal Division, Bathinda, the Divisional Canal Officer, Bathinda Canal Divison, Bathinda and the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Bathinda, respectively, declining the petitioners' plea for shifting their wari (turn of water) from the watercourse 'EABCD' to the watercourse 'EFG'. The petitioners filed an application before the Deputy Collector, for shifting of their turn of water from the watercourse 'EABCD' for Khasra Nos.10, 6, 7, 8, 9, 2 to their turn of water being drawn at Khasra No.9, from watercourse 'EFG'. The Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer, have rejected their plea. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the watercourse 'EABCD', is at a higher level than the land bearing Khasra Nos.10, 6, 7, 8, 9, CWP No.8756 of 2008 -2- 2 and even otherwise takes a circuitous route, the petitioners cannot irrigate their land effectively. It is argued that canal officers should have considered the petitioners difficulty but have instead, rejected their plea on the ground that it would lead to unnecessary disputes. Counsel for the respondents no.4 and 5 submits that the watercourse 'EFG' is their private watercourse. They allowed the petitioners to irrigate Khasra No.9 from this watercourse by way of an agreement. The petitioners have, under the garb of this agreement, filed an application to shift their turn of water for their other land to their watercourse. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and the site plan (Annexure P-1). The watercourse 'EFG' is admittedly a private watercourse that belongs to respondents no.4 and 5. Pursuant to an agreement between the petitioners and respondents no.4 and 5, the petitioners were allowed to draw their turn of water for Khasra No.9, from their watercourse. Apparently, encouraged by this agreement, the petitioners approached canal authorities for change of their turn of water for their other land i.e. Khasra nos.10, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 2 from the watercourse 'EABCD' to the private watercourse 'EFG'. The petitioners request was rightly declined as they have no right to pray that their turn of water be shifted to the private watercourse owned by respondents no.4 and 5. Even if the petitioners had any such right, they have failed to prove that their other land is at a higher level or that it is inadequately irrigated In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the present petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 16.07.2010 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE