CWP No.4661 of 1988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.4661 of 1988 Date of Decision: 12.1.2010 Smt.Hukam Kaur .....Petitioner Vs. The Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala Circle and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing an order dated 9.2.1988, passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala Circle, Irrigation Branch,Patiala and the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer dated 22.7.1987. The petitioner approached the Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa Mandi, Irrigation Branch, Jawaharke under Section 30-B(2) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, with a request that 23 kanals 10 marlas of land belonging to her be transferred to outlet RD 27184/R on New Dhudal Branch, for the purpose of irrigation. The Divisional Canal Officer, after following the procedure prescribed by law, accepted the petitioner's request vide order dated 22.7.1987. Aggrieved by the said order, the private respondents filed an appeal. The Superintending Canal Officer, vide order dated 9.2.1988 accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer as outlet 27184/R leads to a water course CWP No.4661 of 1988 2 exclusively reserved for irrigation of village Jhanda Kalan. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no bar that land falling in one village,cannot be irrigated from an outlet of the another village. It is submitted that in view of the error committed by the Superintending Canal Officer, the writ petition should be allowed, the order dated 9.2.1988 should be set aside and the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer should be restored. Counsel for the State of Punjab submits that as the dispute is between private individuals, the State does not wish to address any arguments. No one is present on behalf of the private respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders passed by the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer and find no reason to hold that the Superintending Canal Officer has committed any error of jurisdiction or of law, as would require any interference. The water course from outlet 27184/R is a lined water course reserved exclusively for irrigation of village Jhanda Kalan. The Superintending Canal Officer did not commit any error in holding that the petitioner's land could not be irrigated through outlet No.27184/R and granted her liberty to make a request for irrigation of land from outlet No.26390/R. As the impugned order does not suffer from any error, the present petition is dismissed. 12.1.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE