CWP No.16188 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16188 of 2007 Date of Decision: 25.11.2010 Gian Parkash .....Petitioner Vs. The Deputy Collector, Rori Water Services Division Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt.Sirsa and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Ashok Verma,Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. P.N. Makani, Advocate for respondent no.4. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.9.2007, passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra W/S Circle, Sirsa. The dispute in the present case arises from a change in the turn of water, whereby residual water has been allotted to respondent no.4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner's land is situated on the main water course, the petitioner is entitled to the residual water. It is further argued that in order to determine, whether a water course is a branch or the main water course, the determining factor is the length of the water course. The petitioner's water course is longer in length and is therefore, the main water course. It is further argued that the order CWP No.16188 of 2007 2 recorded by the Superintending Canal Officer and the reply filed on behalf of the official respondents is factually incorrect, contrary to the site plan and should, therefore, be ignored. Counsel for respondent no.4, on the other hand, submits that a perusal of the site plan, clearly establishes that the petitioner's water course is the branch water course. It is further submitted that the reply filed by respondents no.1 to 3 has clarified any ambiguity that may have existed in the impugned order. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The dispute relates to the right to receive residual canal water. As a general rule, outlets on a branch water course run before outlets of the main water course. The residual water is,therefore, allotted to the last outlet on the main water course. The main watercourse is generally determined by the length of a water course. The Deputy Collector, allowed residual water to respondent no.4. The Divisional Canal Officer accepted the appeal, filed by the petitioner and reversed the order passed by the Deputy Collector. The Superintending Canal Officer examined the site plan and held that as the petitioner's land falls on the branch water, his water course has to run first and awarded residual water to respondent no.4. A relevant extract from the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer reads as follows :- “ Both the parties were heard in detail. The case file, khaka plan and other relevant record available in the revenue missal have been examined carefully. The arguments putforth by the appellant are convincing one CWP No.16188 of 2007 3 because it has been observed from the sketch plan that the area of the appellant falls at the end of main watercourse whereas, the area of the respondent falls at the end of the branch watercourse and accordingly to normal rules of warabandi branch watercourse should run first and then main watercourse. It has also been observed that the case has rightly been decided by the Deputy Collector, Rori W/S Division, Sirsa. In view of the above discussions, I accept the appeal of the appellant and set aside the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer, Rori W/S Division, Sirsa.” However, as counsel for the petitioner strenuously contested the correctness of these findings, the official respondents were directed to file a detailed reply. The reply filed by respondents no.1 to 3, states that the petitioner's outlet lies on the branch water course, whereas the outlet that irrigates land belonging to respondent no.4, lies on the main water course. It would, therefore, be appropriate to reproduce para 4 of the reply, which reads as follows :- “ That the main watercourse and branch watercourse are determined as per length of the watercourse. As per site and attached Naksha from point A i.e. Rect. No.136 x 142 the watercourse mentioned as ABC is branch watercourse being shorter in length in comparison to the main watercourse starting from head of outlet and running through points WXYZ ADE upto Rect./Killa CWP No.16188 of 2007 4 No.185/23. In this way, the land of respondent is on the main watercourse, and that of the petitioner is on the branch watercourse.” A perusal of the reply and findings recorded by the Deputy Collector and the Superintending Canal Officer do not reveal any error of jurisdiction or of law, as would require interference. The impugned orders have been passed in accordance with the principles of irrigation and after due consideration of all relevant facts. The writ petition is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. 25.11.2010 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE