JUDGMENT PARAMJEET SINGH, J. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for India for quashing of order dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure P/5) passed by respondent No. 1 Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur (for short SCO) and order dated 07.10.2009 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Harike, Canal Division, Ferozepur (for short DCO) under the provisions of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application dated 22.02.2006 before the DCO for transferring their land from outlet No. 55000/R (1-R) Mudki Minor to outlet No. 59625/R (1-R) Mudki Minor on the ground that watercourse irrigating the land is broken and they are not getting proper irrigation, therefore, their land be shifted. The said application was examined by various authorities and ultimately, the demand was accepted by the DCO vide order dated 05.10.2006. Thereafter, an appeal filed by the petitioners before the SCO was accepted and the case was remanded to the DCO vide order dated 03.12.2007. The DCO, after hearing the claim of the private respondents and the objections raised by the petitioners, re-decided the matter vide order dated 29.07.2009 (Annexure P/3), rejecting the claim of the private respondents for shifting the land from outlet No. 55000/R (1-R) Mudki Minor. The private respondents filed an appeal before the SCO. Vide order dated 15.09.2009, the SCO again remanded the case to the DCO for reconsideration. The DCO accepted the contention of the private respondents and shifted the land vide order dated 07.10.2009 (Annexure P/4). Thereafter, the petitioners preferred appeal before the SCO, which has been dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure P/5). Hence, this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that earlier the prayer of the private respondents had been rejected by the DCO. There is no change in the grounds to again accept the claim for transfer of the area of the private respondents from outlet No. 55000/R (1-R) Mudki to outlet No. 59625/R (1-R) Mudki Minor. Major Singh, Harjinder Singh etc. other shareholders have been illegally shown to be consenting party. They are small shareholders. There is no change in the grounds to again accept the claim for transfer of the area of the private respondents from outlet No. 55000/R (1-R) Mudki to outlet No. 59625/R (1-R) Mudki Minor. Major Singh, Harjinder Singh etc. other shareholders have been illegally shown to be consenting party. They are small shareholders. As such, order dated 07.10.2009 (Annexure P/4) of the DCO and dismissal of the appeal by the SCO is against the settled principles of law. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. For the first time, the DCO accepted the claim of the private respondents for transfer vide order dated 05.10.2006. On the appeal of the petitioners, the SCO had remanded the case to the DCO vide order dated 03.12.2007. Again, vide order dated 07.10.2009 (Annexure P/4), the DCO has ordered the shifting of the area. As such, the petitioners and the private respondents had been availing the remedy of appeal against the orders of the DCO. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that order dated 07.10.2009 reversing the earlier findings has become void. Only the orders which are based on facts can withstand the scrutiny of law and can be upheld. The DCO after appreciation of the evidence has came to the conclusion that the outlet point is at a quite long distance and the condition of the watercourse is crumbling, as such, the water does not reach to the fields of the private respondents and their irrigation is badly affected, therefore, an area of 71 acre of outlet No. 55000/R (1-R) Minor Mudki has been shifted to outlet No. 59625/R (1-R) Minor Mudki. The watercourse on this outlet is pucca and passes along the land of the private respondents and even some of the shareholders have given consent for shifting. It has also been specifically held by the DCO that as per the report of Ziledar, the area of Killa No. 10 to 18 of Rect. No. 24 has already been merged into new chakbandi of Behlawala Minor and due to the establishment of focal point in Killa No. 21 and 22 of Rect. No. 16 and Killa Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 20 and 21 of Rect. No. 23 have become un-commanded. No. 24 has already been merged into new chakbandi of Behlawala Minor and due to the establishment of focal point in Killa No. 21 and 22 of Rect. No. 16 and Killa Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 20 and 21 of Rect. No. 23 have become un-commanded. Therefore, the DCO has come to a conclusion that Chak (portion) of outlet No. R-55000-R (1-R) Mudki Minor will not break. It has further been observed that the length of the watercourse from outlet No. 59625/R (1-R) Minor Mudki upto the proposed land is 1740 feet, whereas the length of khal from outlet No. 55000/R (1-R) Mudki Minor is 5808 feet. Therefore, as per the reports of the canal officials and facts available on record, the demand of the private respondents has been accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to rebut the factual position whereby an area of 71/71 acres has been shifted to outlet No. 59625/R (1-R) Minor Mudki. The expenses are to be borne by the private respondents (applicants before the DCO). The said finding has been affirmed by the SCO by recording a cogent reason. I do not find any ground to interfere in the findings recorded by the technical authorities keeping in view the actual position existing at the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to site plan (Annexure P/1) and site plan (annexed with the report of the SCO dated 28.03.2011). This report has been submitted in pursuance of order dated 19.01.2011 passed by this Court, which reads as under:- "Arguments have been addressed in context of Annexure P-1, the site plan. The area shown in pink was sought to be shifted at the instance of the respondents from water outlet 55000-R Mudki Minor to water outlet 59625-R Mudki Minor. Orders passed by DCO are not clear in their content. The order passed by DCO indicates the fact position of water outlet 59625-R Mudki Minor saying that it would provide better irrigation to the land of the respondents. On perusal of the order, however, I do not find any comparison with the existing conditions. Orders passed by DCO are not clear in their content. The order passed by DCO indicates the fact position of water outlet 59625-R Mudki Minor saying that it would provide better irrigation to the land of the respondents. On perusal of the order, however, I do not find any comparison with the existing conditions. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur is directed to visit the site, prepare a fresh site plan and file a report as to whether it is feasible to transfer land of the respondents from water outlet 55000-R Mudki Minor to water outlet 59625-R Mudki Minor considering the following:- (i) What would be the change in irrigation percentage if the land is shifted to the chak being irrigated by water outlet 59625-R Mudki Minor? (ii) What is the comparative command area under the two outlets? (iii) Whether the land of the respondents was getting sufficient irrigation till date? (iv) Whether the transfer of land has been ordered only considering the length of watercourse from water outlet 55000-R? (v) Whether the transfer has been ordered only because of bad condition/lining of the watercourse (which in any case was required to be maintained by the shareholders using the watercourse)? (vi) What has been the irrigating percentage of the land of the respondents from existing arrangement? (vii) What is the irrigation percentage of the land of the petitioners at this point in time under existing arrangement? (viii) What would be the irrigating percentage of the land of the petitioners and respondents in case the proposal put forth by the respondents is allowed and the land of the respondents is shifted to water outlet 59625-R? The Superintending Canal Officer would also be at liberty to consider other relevant and related factors to assist the Court to show whether transfer of such a big area of land viz. 71 acres on the existing chak would be conducive for better irrigation for the respondents, as also the petitioners. The report be filed within 6 weeks from today. In the meantime, status quo would be maintained. Adjourned to 29.03.2011." In compliance to the above order dated 19.01.2011, the SCO has submitted parawise reply to the points raised by this Court in the above order as under:- "1. The report be filed within 6 weeks from today. In the meantime, status quo would be maintained. Adjourned to 29.03.2011." In compliance to the above order dated 19.01.2011, the SCO has submitted parawise reply to the points raised by this Court in the above order as under:- "1. That point wise reply to the query as sought for by this Hon'ble High Court is as under:- (i) With the addition of this area in the Chak of outlet RD 59725/R, size of outlet will increase from B=0.20' & H=1.21' to B=0.21' & H=1.40' & discharge will also increase from 0.81 Cs. to 1.04 Cs. as shown in the provisional A-Form attached. Hence, the irrigation percentage will remain same. (ii) The command area under the two Outlets is given below:- Outlet Existing Proposed GCA CCA GCA CCA 55000/R 411 391 340 320 59625/R 288 267 359 338 (iii) No, old water course is in deteriorated condition, not in use from point N to O and O to D as shown in the map towards respondents land. (iv) Yes, One of the main reason for shifting of the Chak from Outlet RD 55000/R to 59625/R of I-R Minor Mudki was the length of the water course as it will decrease substantively by shifting the chak. The other reason is the deteriorated/dilapidated condition of the water course which is beyond repair, hence it is very difficult to revive. So, due to deteriorated condition of existing water course, transfer of land was ordered. (v) No, Basic criteria was length of the water course, because it is more difficult to maintain a longer water course than a shorter water course for shareholders. But as explained above deteriorated condition of water course was also one of the reasons. (vi) As the water course is in dismantled condition, no canal irrigation to respondents land is taking place from this outlet. (vii) The land of the petitioner is presently being irrigated 100% with canal water with the existing arrangement from Outlet RD 59625/R. (viii) Both (petitioners & respondents) will get required water and their whole land will be irrigated as the size of the outlet will increase and respondents has given undertaking that if required, they will raise the water course at their (respondents) Cost. 2. 2. That in short, it is submitted for kind consideration of this Hon'ble High Court that as per report of Sub Divisional Officer, Rajuwala Sub Division, Rajuwala, this outlet point (Mogha) No. 59625-R of 1-R Minor by adding water of this Chak/area, in this khal, it is suitable for carrying the additional water from the outlet and if required with raising of water course at the cost of respondents. Command Statement of JE had also been seen, which shows its suitability for irrigation of the land/area of the respondents namely Nachhattar Singh etc. In view of above said submissions, the present writ petition is based on false & flimsy grounds and petitioners are not entitled to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court." The site plan annexed with the report clearly indicates the distance of the fields of the petitioners from both the outlets. On the bare perusal of the site plan, it is clear that the land of the respondents is at far off place from outlet No. 55000/R (1-R) Mudki Minor; whereas, it is nearer from outlet No. 59625-R (1-R) Mudki Minor. Still, this Court further sought an affidavit along with calculations of discharge, in compliance of which, the SCO has placed on record affidavit dated 26.08.2011 along with comparative calculation of the existing and proposed outlets (Annexure R-1). In Annexure R/1, the calculations show that authorized supply per acre will be received to the extent of 1845 cubic ft. on both the outlets. Similarly, the position with regard to discharge by both outlets is almost same/identical which is reflected in Annexure R/2 and Annexure R/3 i.e. the design of the outlets and calculations to work out the discharge of the outlets. The comparative command statement (Annexure R/4) also shows that the shifting will result into better commandable irrigation. In these circumstances, there is no reason to differ with the findings of the competent expert authorities. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable, hence rejected. It would be appropriate to mention here that the SCO has filed another affidavit dated 08.11.2011. Along with this, there is an application of the petitioners (Annexure R-1T) wherein it is mentioned that their land is not being properly irrigated being at the tale. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable, hence rejected. It would be appropriate to mention here that the SCO has filed another affidavit dated 08.11.2011. Along with this, there is an application of the petitioners (Annexure R-1T) wherein it is mentioned that their land is not being properly irrigated being at the tale. In the face of this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out that why the petitioners (Rajinder Singh and his mother Surjit Kaur) are asking for shifting of their land from outlet No. 55000/R (1-R) Mudki Minor and this too has been approved vide order dated 21.08.2002 (Annexure R-2) by the DCO. The SCO has filed another affidavit dated 27.01.2012. Along with this affidavit, there is a report of the Divisional Engineer, P.W.R.M.D.K. Lining Division No. 3, Malout (Annexure R-6/T) in which the Divisional Engineer has stated that by putting of one layer of bricks on the walls of the watercourse, the size of water course will become 0.457 Mtrs x 0.381 Mtr + 0.115 Mtr and this size can take 1.58 cusic water which is much higher than the earlier water carrying capacity of the watercourse. In the face of these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the same is rejected. It would be appropriate to mention here that it is always in the interest of better irrigation if the area is shifted. In the present case, the distance, and crumbling condition of the watercourse has been taken as a ground to shift the area for better irrigation. Since the distance is more relevant with regard to flow of water, the authorities have rightly taken a decision to shift the area. It is, however, made clear that the private respondents will not be entitled to take water unless a layer of bricks over the walls of the water course is laid. As and when the additional layer of bricks is laid on the water course, the department will be at liberty to run the watercourse and allow the irrigation to the fields of the private respondents. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the Canal Authorities. Hence, writ petition fails. Dismissed. No order as to costs.