High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Daya Nand vs Divisional Canal Officer Etc on 22 October, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daya Nand vs Divisional Canal Officer Etc on 22 October, 2008
Civil Writ Petition No. 18257 of 2008                                          1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
                                      --

                                Civil Writ Petition No. 18257 of 2008
                                Date of decision: 22.10.2008

Daya Nand                                                 ........Petitioner

            Versus

Divisional Canal Officer etc.                             .......Respondents

Coram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S.Khehar
            Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
                             -.-

Present:    Mr. S S Godara, Advocate
            for the petitioner
                   -.-

J.S.Khehar, J. (Oral)

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned

the final order passed by the Chief Canal Officer/BWSU, Irrigation

Department, Haryana, Panchkula dated 20.08.2008 (Annexure P-5).

A perusal of the aforesaid order reveals, that the irrigation of

the area in question, is only 134%, whereas the irrigation of the outlet of

the respondents is 154%, and that of the village Sanchla, is 183%.

The aforesaid factual position has not been disputed by the

learned counsel for the petitioner. It is, however, the contention of the

leaned counsel for the petitioner, that by carving out a new outlet for the

petitioner at point ‘D’ (as indicated in the site plan Annexure P-1), the

irrigation capacity, which is presently available to the petitioner from point

‘C’, shall be reduced. Since the factual position of the percentage of

irrigation depicted in the impugned order dated 20.08.2008 (Annexure P-5)
Civil Writ Petition No. 18257 of 2008 2

has not been disputed, we are of the view, that the change of watercourse

from point ‘A’ to ‘D’ for respondents No. 4 to 25, would be in the overall

interest of the irrigation, even if the same as a result of reducing the

quantum of irrigation presently available to the petitioner to a limited

extent.

The instant writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.

[J.S.Khehar]
Judge

[Nirmaljit Kaur]
Judge
October 22, 2008
mohan