C.W.P. No. 658 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 658 of 2007 Date of decision: 19-03-2008 Nachhattar Singh Petitioner Vs. Superintending Canal Officer and others .....Respondents .... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Garewal Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 5. K.S.GAREWAL, J. This case relates to dispute over irrigation between Nachhatar Singh on the one hand and Mahavir Singh, Jasvir Singh and Jaswant Singh on the other of Bhure Khurd, Tehsil and District Ferozepur. Land measuring 12 acres held by the petitioner was transferred to outlet 25875-L. Transfer was done because the petitioner's holding was not getting sufficient irrigation from the original outlet on account of long distance from the outlet. The petitioner's application was inquired into and verified. Ziledar inspected the spot and recorded statements of the parties. On inquiry he found that there was no water course from outlet 23295-L taking water to the petitioner's holding. Therefore, the Ziledar recommended the transfer of petitioner's holding from 23295-L to 25875-L and submitted his report to Sub Divisional Officer. The SDO verified the facts and recommended the case for transfer to the Divisional Canal Officer. The order was passed by D.C.O. on November 9, 2005 transferring the holding C.W.P. No. 658 of 2007 2 as prayed for by the petitioner. However, the respondents were aggrieved by this order and they preferred an appeal to Superintending Canal Officer who accepted the appeal on May 26, 2006 and set aside the transfer order. The reason given by the S.C.O. was that the size of the outlet was not going to increase with the transfer, this would lead to imposing a cut on the shareholders so that irrigation could be provided to all. The appellants before him were not prepared to suffer this reduction in irrigation. Consequently the appeal was allowed. The petitioner challenged the impugned order by arguing that it was based on a misconception and wrong appreciation of the real matter in controversy, the SCO had failed to appreciate that the petitioner was not getting proper irrigation as his land was situated at a long distance from the outlet, the field staff had inspected the spot and on the basis of the inquiry recommended the transfer. The petitioner pleaded that the impugned order was cryptic and slip-short and did not give any valid reason. We have gone through the orders passed by the Canal Authorities and find that D.C.O. had heard a large number of people and decided in favour of the petitioner after many persons had supported the petitioner. The respondents' arguments is that the transfer would not lead to the increase in the area of the outlet, as the area was less than 10%, irrigation would be provided by imposing a cut. This was not acceptable to the respondents. In the written statement filed by the respondents, their stand was reiterated. We find that the matter relating to irrigation is not only technical but also involves rights of many shareholders and any scheme C.W.P. No. 658 of 2007 3 which reduces the share of the existing shareholders is naturally open to objection. Transfer of land from one outlet to another would be acceptable only if the transfer does not harm the interest of the persons who are already receiving water from that outlet. It seems that in the present case the interest of the existing shareholders was liable to be harmed. Therefore, we find that the Superintending Canal Officer had passed the correct order and there is no reason to interfere with the decision. It is true that the original decision in favour of the petitioner given by the Divisional Canal Officer was based on the spot inspection and inquiry conducted by the Ziledar and Sub Divisional Officer but that was something which was done without considering the interest of the respondents. As the respondents had successfully challenged the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer and in appeal got the decision set aside, we find no reason to interfere as it is expected that the Superintending Canal Officer must have decided the matter on merits. Disputed questions of fact cannot be subjected to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This petition is dismissed. ( K.S.GAREWAL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE March 19,2008 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not?