JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. In this application prayer made is to vacate ex parte order dated 6.8.1998 whereby operation of Annexures P-l and P-2 was stayed till further orders.
2. Notice of the CM. was given to the counsel opposite.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of parties state that instead of deciding the application, the writ petition itself may be disposed of on merits. In view of this submission, the writ petition is taken on Board for final disposal.
4. In this petition, challenge by the petitioners is to order dated 18.12.1997 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Bathinda, whereby land measuring 3.56 acres has been withdrawn from outlet No. 20015-R (previous number 20013/L) Doomwali Minor and included in outlet No. 28616-R Toona Rajbaha, for which the scheme was published. Challenge is also to order dated 28.5.1998 of the Superintending Canal Officer, Ludhiana, whereby in appeal order of the Divisional Canal Officer has been maintained.
5. In brief, the facts are that petitioners and respondent No. 3 are having their agricultural land at village Ghudda and their source of irrigation is canal water. Respondent No. 3 filed an application on 18.12.1997 before respondent No. 2 for transfer of his land measuring 3.56 acres from outlet RD No. 20015/R Doomwali Minor to outlet RD No. 28/616/L Teona Rajbaha. On receipt of the application, the scheme was published and objections to the scheme invited. Report of the Ziledar was also called for. Petitioners objected to the sanctioning of the scheme. Divisional Canal Officer after considering the objections of the petitioners and the report of the Ziledar who had recommended for transfer of the area, sanctioned the scheme under Section 30-B(2) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act. Petitioners feeling aggrieved, took the matter to the Superintending Canal Officer. Vide order dated 28.5.1998, the Superintending Canal Officer in exercise of his powers under Section 30-B(3) maintained order dated 18.12.1997 of the Divisional Canal Officer. Hence, the present writ petition.
6. The only submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that in the year 1986, father of respondent No. 3, namely Zora Singh along with other share holders applied to the Divisional Canal Officer, Bathinda, for transfer of 9.35 acres of land from outlet R.D. No. 20013/R Doomwali Minor (now changed to outlet R.D. No. 20015/R) to outlet R.D. No. 28616/L Teona Rajbaha, under the provisions of Northern India Canal and Drainage Act. It is contended that the prayer of father of respondent No. 3 was accepted by the Divisional Canal Officer and he allowed the transfer of 9.35 acres of land from outlet R.D. No. 20013/R to outlet R.D. No. 28616/L Teona Rajbaha, but in appeal the Superintending Canal Officer set aside the order of the Divisional Canal Officer. It is contended that after a gap of 10 years, the very prayer made by the father of the respondent No. 3 which stood rejected ought no to have been allowed. In answer to these submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 has contended that earlier not only his father but petitioner No. 3 also were applicants and had applied for transfer of the area but their application was rejected because the said outlet could not bear the load of 9.35 acres. Counsel has contended that in the present case, the area of respondent No. 3 alone which is 3.56 acres has been allowed to be transferred from outlet R.D. No. 20015/R Doomwali Minor to outlet R.D. No. 28616/L Teona Rajbaha. It is contended that there is no water-course to the existing land and, therefore, the Authorities have not committed any illegality in sanctioning the scheme.
7. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record. I am or the view that there is no merit in the writ petition.
8. In the earlier case referred to by counsel for the petitioner, not only father of respondent No. 3 but petitioner No. 3 along with some other persons had applied for transfer of area 9.35 acres from outlet RD No. 20013/R Doomwali Minor to outlet RD. No. 28616/L Teona Rajbaha. The Divisional Canal Officer, Bathinda, vide order dated 24.1.1986 rejected the scheme. Against the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, the matter was taken in appeal/revision to the Superintending Canal Officer who vide order dated 18.6.1998 directed the Divisional Canal Officer, Bathinda, to inspect the spot and decide the case on merits. On remand, Divisional Canal Officer, Bathinda, vide order dated 9.9.1986 allowed transfer of the area from outlet RD No. 20013/R Doomwali Minor to outlet RD No. 28616/L Teona Rajbaha. Against the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, the matter was again taken to the Superintending Canal Officer, who vide order dated 5.2.1997 held that once the Divisional Canal Officer rejected the scheme, the Superintending Canal Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the scheme rejected by the Divisional Canal Officer. In this regard, the Superintending Canal Officer relied upon a judgment of this Court in Lachhman Singh and Ors. v. Hem Singh and Ors., 1972 P.L.J. 557. The judgment in Lachhman Singh’ case (supra) was rendered before amendment of sub-section (2) of Section 30-B. Sub-section (2) of Section 30-B has been amended by Punjab Act 356 of 1973 and because of the amendment, Divisional Canal Officer has been empowered to approve, modify and reject the scheme after consideration of the objections and suggestions received on publication of the scheme. Sub-section (3) gives power to the Superintending Canal Officer to act suo-motu on an application by the person aggrieved by the approval, modification and rejection of the scheme, to call for the record of the scheme from the Divisional Canal Officer and after examining the same, confirm the action taken by the Divisional Canal Officer or modify the scheme in such form as he may deem fit or reject the same. Therefore, the contention that because of order dated 5.2.1997 of the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana, respondent No. 3 is debarred from getting his area transferred from one outlet to another, is without any merit. Moreover, the situation now is totally different than what was prevalent then. The area now sought to be transferred from one outlet to another is 3.56 acres and not 9.35 acres and in this regard the Divisional Canal Officer and also the Superintending Canal Officer have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that there is no water-course towards the area of respondent No. 3 whereas a pucca water-course is running near the land of respondent No. 3 and the land can be irrigated from outlet RD No. 28616/L Teona Minor. The spot was also inspected by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Teona Canal, Gidderbaha, who on inspection found that there is no water-course to the land of respondent No. 3 from out RD No. 20013/L (now changed as RD 20015/R) Doomwali Minor whereas the pucca watercourse from outlet RD No. 28616/L Teona Disty. is passing adjoining the land of respondent No. 3. Site plan, Ex.R-3/1 also supports the contention of respondent No. 3. The orders of the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer, thus, being in the interest of irrigation and having been passed by the persons well-versed and experts in the field, call for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. Resultantly, the writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.