MUKAND SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Nos. 3 to 14 filed a petition before the Divisional Canal Officer with the prayer that their land be shifted from outlet No. RD 40868-R to RD 43400-R. The competent authority after getting the matter investigated, accepted the prayer. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer. This appeal having been dismissed vide order dated April 20, 2000, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioners. He contends that the Divisional Canal Officer had not published the scheme in accordance with the provisions of Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1973. Thus, the impugned orders are vitiated. Is it so ?

(3.) MR . Sidhu contends that the level of the land has not been kept in view while allowing the change from one outlet to another. Even this objection is not shown to have been raised before the authorities.