Sandhura Singh And Others v. Superintending Canal Officer And Others

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari to set aside order dated 23.11.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa Canal & Ground Water Division, Water Resources Department, Punjab (for short 'the learned D.C.O.') and order dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala Canal Circle, Water Resources Department, Punjab, Patiala (in short 'the learned S.C.O.').

Sr.

No.

Name of the Rajbah Name of the Village Existing area in acres Proposed area in acres GA CCA GA CCA 1.

118077/TF Sandoha Extension Kanakwal 2.

112135/TL Phulekhari Sandoha Extension Kanakwal Total Total Scheme

In Sham Sunder v. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur, 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 35; a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- "5. Even otherwise, we find no ground to interfere. The Canal Authorities are the best judges for the situation at the spot. If on a consideration of the matter it has been found that the fields of the petitioner can be properly irrigated from the existing outlet, this court cannot interfere in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution unless it is shown that the order is patently illegal and arbitrary. Nothing of the sort has been pointed out..."

10.

In Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(67) RCR (Civil)

760; a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- "...We are of the opinion that the matter of transfer of an area from one outlet to another by the canal authorities should be seldom interfered with in the writ jurisdiction, particularly when the canal authorities had taken the decision after hearing the interested parties and in the interest of better irrigation, and also considering that while making such transfer, the maximum land will be properly irrigated..."

11.

Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, once the procedural requirements have been complied with and the canal authorities, upon consideration of the matter and having examined all technical aspects, have concluded that shifting of area would be in the interest of better irrigation; it would not be in the fitness of things for this Court to substitute the said conclusion. Furthermore, it has not been pointed out as to how the impugned orders are patently illegal or arbitrary. 12.

In view of the above discussion, there is no error in the impugned order(s) passed by the canal authorities, which may call for any interference by this Court in this writ petition, and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.

13.

All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.