Balbir Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala
2013-12-02
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
body2013
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The petitioners are aggrieved against orders dated 13.3.2013 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Irrigation Branch, Sangrur and 10.10.2013 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala Circle IB, Patiala by which application filed by the private respondents on 1.8.2012 for shifting of their area from outlet No.12080/L to outlet No.10620/L has been allowed. In brief, the private respondents made an application to respondent No.2 for shifting of their area from outlet No.12080/L to outlet No.10620/L for better irrigation and to take benefit of canal water. Respondent No.2, after a thorough inspection and investigation, passed a detailed order and allowed the application. The petitioners challenged that order by way of appeal before respondent No.1 but that too has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the transfer of the land of the private respondents from outlet No.12080/L to outlet No.10620/L would effect the irrigation of the land of the petitioners as it would result in reduction of their wari (turn). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusal of the record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no error in the orders of the Courts below which have been passed after considering all the aspects in its entirety. In this regard, reference could be made to the order of the Superintending Canal Officer, which reads thus: “According to report of Division Canal Officer, the working head of the proposed area to be shifted from Bhaini Mehraj Minor Outlet No.12080/L is 0.63 feet. Whereas the working head of this land from outlet 10620/L is 1.21 feet. From this it is clear that land will be properly irrigated from outlet 10620/Left. The working head of the proposed area to be shifted from Bhaini Mehraj outlet 8865/L is little more than the proposed outlet but the length of water course from proposed outlet is very less due to which irrigation will be better from the proposed outlet.” In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.