IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14980 of 2010 Date of decision : 18.08.2011 Bhagat Ram and others ...Petitioners Versus Superintending Canal Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. N.D.S. Mann, Addl.AG, Punjab for the State. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 3. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioners gave an application for including their area in Mogha Burji No. 12710-R Ladhu Ka Rajwaha after separating them from Mogha Burji No. 130470-R Ladhu Ka Rajwaha on the ground that their land was not being properly irrigated from the said Mogha. The application was sent to Sub Divisional Officer for inquiry. Ziledar recommended the case of the petitioner for transfer of area. No co-sharer has statedly raised any objection against the inclusion of the area of the petitioners. Respondent No. 2/Divisional Canal Officer accepted the prayer of the petitioner and directed that the area be included in Mogha Burji No. 127110-R Ladhu Ka Rajwaha. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal against the order and the Superintending Canal Officer has accepted the appeal on the ground that if this land is included in the proposed Mogha then water will not pass through it and due to collection water, the pacca water course Civil Writ Petition No. 14980 of 2010 -2- will break. He, accordingly, accepted the appeal. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the reasons given by the Superintending Canal Officer to interfere in the order apparently are not justified under law for interfering in the order under appeal. Counsel for the respondents have also not pointed out to any provisions under which this could be taken as a valid ground to interfere in the change of Mogha. No provision of law has been brought to my notice, which could justify interference on this ground. In this view of the above, it would be appropriate for the Superintending Canal Officer to reconsider the issue and see in case, such a reason would be justified under any provision of law for interfering in the order passed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Superintending Canal Officer for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Superintending Canal Officer on 12.09.2011. The present writ petition is disposed of. August 18, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE