TARSEM LAL Vs. SUPERINTENDENT CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 26.6.2008, passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana, Punjab.

(2.) Counsel for the Petitioner submits that by allowing the excavation of a water course, through the Petitioner's land, though on payment of compensation, the Petitioner's land would be bifurcated. It is further argued that as the Divisional Canal Officer rejected the scheme in its entirety, the Superintending Canal Officer had no jurisdiction to accept the scheme without modification. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 4 is already getting irrigation through a pucca khal at point 'D', he cannot be allowed a new water course. It is further argued that Respondent No. 4 can irrigate his land from the point 'P' leading to the point 'Q' as a water course between the point 'P' and 'Q' would be much shorter.

(3.) Counsel for the State of Punjab and the private Respondents, on the other hand, submit that the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer is legal and valid. The water course ABCDE would involve excavation of 54 karams of land, as the portions 'AB' and 'DC' are already in existence, whereas the water course suggested by the Petitioner between point 'P' and 'Q' would be much longer, as it would involve excavation of 200 karams of land. Even otherwise, the Petitioner has installed a motor at point 'Q', Respondent No. 4 would not be able to excavate the water course.