JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. - Challenge in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to orders dated December 16, 1999 and July 28, 2000, Annexures P-10 and P-12 passed by the Canal Authorities allowing extension of Waryam Khera minor from pillar No. 6078 and connecting with the pillar No. 76300 of Ramsara minor with a link and for sanction of Ramsara minor from 76300 to 88625 as Waryam Khera minor for villages Shergarh, Waryam Khera, Dhingawali, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur. 2. As projected in the petition, facts of the case would reveal that Dhanpat Rai, fourth respondent herein and some other share holders of village Waryam Khera filed an application in the year 1998 before the Divisional Canal Officer-respondent No. 2 herein pleading therein that their land was being irrigated from Waryam minor through outlet No. 6078 by which they were not getting proper irrigation. A request for extension of Waryam minor to increase the discharge of water in Waryam minor was, thus, made by them. The second respondent directed the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, respondent No. 3, to submit a report with respect to application, who further asked Ziledar, Ajimgarh to visit the spot and report regarding feasibility of the said request. On September 9, 1998, Ziledar, Ajimgarh, although verified the water tail gauge and command statement maintained in the office of respondent No. 2 and submitted his report to respondent No. 3, it is the case of petitioner that the same was done without discussing the water tail gauge and command statement actually verified by him. On receipt of the aforesaid report, respondent No. 3 himself sought levelling report from the Junior Engineer and examined the records of water tail gauge and command statement maintained in the office of respondent No. 2 and submitted his report before the second respondent. He neither recommended the case of applicants nor mentioned anything regarding levelling reports, L-sections, water tail gauge or command statement. He only mentioned that in the event of connecting Waryam minor with Ramsra minor, the FSI, in the Waryam minor would have to be raised by two feet and that for doing so, raising of the parent channel, i.e., Malikpur Rajbaha from RD 74700 to RD 13300 would have to be done. He further observed that command in the Ramsra minor would be reduced. He further observed that command in the Ramsra minor would be reduced. It is further the case of petition that although there was no recommendation by the third respondent with regard to application, still the second respondent on January 11, 1999 ordered a scheme to be framed with respect to the proposal of applicants, who were politically very close to the present Akali-BJP Government and a scheme, Annexure P-7, was framed on orders issued by the second respondent. In the scheme, no mention was made with regard to costs to be incurred as the column of expenditure was left blank. It was mentioned that the whole expenditure to be incurred in the execution of scheme was to be borne by the applicants. The list of persons to be benefited and affected was not attached with the scheme. 3. Petitioner objected to the scheme aforesaid in which it was mentioned that the proposed scheme was not framed as required under law and that it would adversely affect the irrigation of their land as also that the scheme was not in the interest of irrigation for the residents of village falling on the tail of Ramsra as they were already getting proper irrigation as depicted in the water tail gauge. It was further mentioned that the proposed scheme would entail an expenditure of more than Rs. 25-30 crores which would be sheer wastage of money. It is further the case of petitioners that Gram Panchayats of village Ramsra and many other villages passed resolutions requesting the Canal Authorities not to implement the proposed scheme and requested the second respondent not to accept the proposal as the same was against the interest of irrigation. Vide order dated December 16, 1999, second respondent accepted the application of respondent No. 4 and others and ordered the extension of Waryam Minor to be connected with the Ramsra minor from RD 6078 i.e., from point B to E. For so doing, he ordered the enlargement of the existing Waryam minor from RD 0 to RD 6078. The construction of new Waryam minor from RD 6078 to RD 17705 and to connect the same with Ramsra minor at RD 763000 at point E was also ordered. The construction of new Waryam minor from RD 6078 to RD 17705 and to connect the same with Ramsra minor at RD 763000 at point E was also ordered. It was further ordered that Malukpur Rajbaha be raised from RD 74700 to RD 133200 and that the whole expenditure of construction and reconstruction of the minors and raising of Rajbaha was to be borne by the Government. It is also the case of petitioner that while so ordering, second respondent lost sight of the fact that by doing so, the irrigation of petitioners land and other share holders shall be reduced and the order was in gross violation of sanctioned scheme because in the scheme it was clearly mentioned that whole expenditure would be borne by the applicants. It is further the case of petitioner that the scheme is not viable as per the design because as per L-Sections, the bed level of Waryam minor at Point B is 599.64 while bed level at point E at Ramsra minor is 600.89. The water in Waryam minor is to move from point B to E which is 11627 feet in length. If, as per the design, a slope of 0.25 feet per thousand feet is given, bed level of Waryam minor at point E comes to 596.73 which is 4.16 feet down the level of Ramsra minor at the point of junction. So, joining two minors at point junction E is not technically feasible. Aggrieved, petitioner and others preferred an appeal against order dated 16.12.1999 before respondent No. 1 which has since been dismissed vide order dated 28.7.2000. It is these two orders, as mentioned above, passed by Divisional Canal Officer and Superintending Canal Officer, which have been challenged in the present petition. 4. Mr. Pathela, learned counsel for the petitioner has not touched the aspect of adverse irrigation of petitioner by the scheme that has been sanctioned by the canal authorities presumably for the reason that a firm finding of fact has been recorded by the canal authorities that the area of fourth respondent and others, who prayed for the scheme, as mentioned above, is situated towards down stream from RD 6078 of Waryam minor and that it hampers their irrigation. Conscious, thus, of the fact that scheme, as envisaged would benefit the cause of respondents and further that there is no material on record that may show adverse effect on the irrigation, as mentioned above, nothing on this aspect, has been argued. 5. All that has been urged before us is that while sanctioning the scheme, concerned authorities have remained totally oblivious of the fact that it would adversely affect the government exchequer as lot of money shall be spent in implementing the scheme. Mr. Pathela, on the basis of various reports, dealing with expenditure involved in the case, inclusive of a letter annexed with a separate Civil Misc. No. 17898 of 2002, contends that the scheme in question might involve expenditure of 40 lacs and this aspect of the case has not been considered by the canal authorities. Contention of Mr. Pathela needs to be summarily rejected inasmuch as it is not the petitioner, who has been asked to incur the expenditure in implementing the scheme and it should be of no concern to the petitioner if the Government has to incur the expenditure for the same. When confronted with this, all that the learned counsel could contend was that this aspect of the matter should have at least been kept in view by the canal authorities. Inasmuch as expenditure part is of no concern to the petitioner, the contention of Mr. Pathela is to be repelled. Finding no merit in this petition, we dismiss the same in limine, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.