LPA No.227 and 228 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 227 of 2008 Date of decision 1 .4.2009 Gurmail Singh and others ...Appellants Versus The Superintending Canal Officer and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate for the appellants 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of L.P.A.Nos. 227 and 228 of 2009 as common question of law is involved in both these appeals. The facts are being taken from L.P.A.No.227 of 2009. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.3.2009passed in CWP No. 3302 of 2009 is the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent. The learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that the Superintending Canal Officer has recorded valid reasons to uphold the order of the Divisional Canal Officer. The paramount interest of better irrigation is the basis of the order passed by the Canal authorities like Superintending Canal Officer and Divisional Canal Officer. The area was getting lesser water because it was at the tail- end of the Chand New Minor and the crops used to suffer loss in the area at the tail-end. Most of the area has been without any water course necessitating the sanctioning of a new outlet. It was in that context that the LPA No.227 and 228 of 2009 2 appeal filed against the order of the Divisional Canal Officer was dismissed by the Superintending Canal Officer and the learned Single Judge has noticed the aforesaid factual position. The other issue that no proper opportunity was given by serving notice on the appellant also did not find favour with the learned Single Judge who has recorded the finding that in the impugned order it has been specifically mentioned that notice was served under the rules and despite notice no share holder came present to contest. The capacity of the Ditch Canal is stated to be full by the counsel for the appellant and the allegation is that the Superintending Canal Officer and the Divisional Canal Officer did not consider this aspect while sanctioning the water course. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that such a plea cannot be permitted to be raised in the writ jurisdiction as it is a question of fact whether the Ditch Canal is capable of taking further load of any water course or not. The writ petition has been rightly dismissed. We find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. A copy of the order be placed on the file of the connected appeal. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Augustine George Masih) 1.4.2009 Judge okg