Judgment:
LPA No.356 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.Nos.946-48 of 2013 and LPA No.356 of 2013 Date of Order:
01. 03.2013 Gheechar Singh and another ...Appellants Versus Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Colony, Ferozepur and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.S.K.Arora, Advocate, for the caveator-respondent no.3.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J(Oral) C.M.No.946 of 2013 Prayer in this application is to condone delay of 81 days in filing the appeal.
In view of the averments in the application and the arguments addressed by counsel for the appellants, the application is allowed and delay of 81 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M.No.947 of 2013 Prayer in this application is to condone the delay of 44 days in re-filing the appeal.
Notice of the application to counsel for contesting LPA No.356 of 2013 -2- respondent no.3.
Counsel for contesting respondent no.3 states that he has no objection, if the application is allowed.
In view of the averments in the application and the statement made by counsel for contesting respondent no.3, the application is allowed and delay of 44 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
LPA No.356 of 2013 The appellants pray that order dated 01.08.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing their writ petition, as well as order passed by Superintending Canal Officer, may be set aside.
Counsel for the appellants submits that transfer of three acres of land to the outlet, that serves the appellants' land, would, necessarily have an adveRs.effect on availability of water to the appellants' fields.
The impugned orders passed without considering this aspect are illegal and void and should, therefore, be set aside.
It is further submitted that while considering a similar controversy, this Court has held in Civil Writ Petition No.9069 of 2007 (Jaswant Singh and others v.
Superintending Canal Officer and others).that before proceeding to pass an order allocating additional land to an outlet, canal authorities are required to assess the yield of the outlet, the commanded area, the area to be added, the availability of water etc.and only, thereafter, record a statistical LPA No.356 of 2013 -3- finding, whether rights of landowners drawing water from the outlet would or would not be adversely effected.
A perusal of the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer as well as order dismissing the appellants' writ petition reveal that no such procedure has been adopted.
The transfer of three acres would adversely effect irrigation to the appellants' fields.
We have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned ordeRs.A small piece of three acres of land has been transferred to the outlet serving the appellants' fields.
The adveRs.effect, if any, would, therefore, be minimal.
The appellants have not produced any evidence on record to prove any adveRs.effect upon irrigation to their fields.
We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and dismiss the appeal by directing that if after implementation of the proposed change, it is discovered that there is a serious adveRs.impact on irrigation to the appellants' fields, the appellants would be at liberty to approach canal authorities for necessary relief.
(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE March 01, 2013 (REKHA MITTAL) nt JUDGE