JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - An application was filed by some of the respondents that their land be shifted from outlet No. 88000-L to 88800-L. Later on. Since the land owners concerned had refused to part with their land for the water channel, it was proposed that the land be shifted to outlet No. RD 89000. After hearing the parties, the Divisional Canal Officer vide order dated September 23, 1998 permitted the shifting of land to outlet No. 89000. Aggrieved by the order, the present petition alongwith 10 other land owners filed an appeal. The Superintending Canal Officer dismissed it vide order dated September 16, 1999. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Canal Officer. He considered the matter vide order dated July 10, 2000, the Chief Canal Officer dismissed the appeal. Copies of the three orders have been produced as Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-5 respectively. The petitioner in this writ petition prays that these orders be quashed. 2. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents despite opportunity. 3. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 4. Dr. Gurmeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the responent-Authorities have erred in allowing the shifting of land to outlet No. 89000. He further contends that the land of the petitioner is at a higher level. The shifting would result in loss of irrigation. 5. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by Mr. K.S. Godata, appearing for respondents No. 4 to 38. 6. It is admitted position that the respondents had requested for the shifting of their land from outlet No. 89000 as there was obstruction, A scheme was, accordingly, prepared. Since the land owners concerned had refused to part with the land for providing the water channel, the scheme initially prepared had to be modified. The Divisional Canal Officer had done so. Thereafter, the land was shifted to outlet No. 89000. As a result the obstruction, which existed at the original outlet on account of the land being used for storing carcasses, was avoided. In doing so, the Authorities have not violated any provision of the statute or the rules. 7. Dr. Gurmeet Singh contends that the petitioners land is at a higher level. Thus, there would be a loss of irrigation. This contention cannot be accepted. In doing so, the Authorities have not violated any provision of the statute or the rules. 7. Dr. Gurmeet Singh contends that the petitioners land is at a higher level. Thus, there would be a loss of irrigation. This contention cannot be accepted. The Chief Canal Officer has categorically found that the level of the water at the two places is identical. The Officer at the spot is in a much better position to know the facts. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the level of the petitioners land is higher than the level of the water channel. 8. A fact which deserves to be mentioned is that out of a large number of land owners. Only the petitioners has raised the objection. All other land owners are satisfied. 9. No other point has been raised. 10. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is, consequently, dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.