ORDER Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - Respondent Nos. 3 to 14 filed a petition before the Divisional Canal Officer with the prayer that their land be shifted from outlet No. RD 40868-R to RD 43400-R. The competent authority after getting the matter investigated, accepted the prayer. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer. This appeal having been dismissed vide order dated April 20, 2000, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. 2. We have heard Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioners. He contends that the Divisional Canal Officer had not published the scheme in accordance with the provisions of Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1973. Thus, the impugned orders are vitiated. Is it so ? 3. Admittedly, the petitioners were present before the Divisional Canal Officer. They raised no objection that the scheme had not been published. When the matter was decided against the petitioners, they filed an appeal. Even at that stage the objection regarding publication of the scheme was not raised. In this situation, we find no ground to allow the petitioners to raise the objection at this stage. It may be added that since the petitioners were present, it cannot be said that they did not have a chance to put forth their objections. In fact, it is the admitted position that it was after hearing them that the competent authorities had passed the impugned orders. 4. Mr. Sidhu contends that the level of the land has not been kept in view while allowing the change from one outlet to another. Even this objection is not shown to have been raised before the authorities. 5. We may only add that matters regarding irrigation of fields can be better judged by the Officers on the spot. This Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution can only interfere if there is a violation of the statutory provisions. No such violation has even been alleged. Therefore, no ground for interference is made out. 6. No other point has been raised. We find no infirmity in the impugned orders. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.