BALBIR SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved against orders dated 13.3.2013 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Irrigation Branch, Sangrur and 10.10.2013 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala Circle I.B., Patiala by which application filed by the private respondents on 1.8.2012 for shifting of their area from outlet No. 12080/L to outlet No. 10620/L has been allowed. In brief, the private respondents made an application to respondent No. 2 for shifting of their area from outlet No. 12080/L to outlet No. 10620/L for better irrigation and to take benefit of canal water. Respondent No. 2, after a thorough inspection and investigation, passed a detailed order and allowed the application. The petitioners challenged that order by way of appeal before respondent No. 1 but that too has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the transfer of the land of the private respondents from outlet No. 12080/L to outlet No. 10620/L would effect the irrigation of the land of the petitioners as it would result in reduction of their wari (turn). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusal of the record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no error in the orders of the Courts below which have been passed after considering all the aspects in its entirety. In this regard, reference could be made to the order of the Superintending Canal Officer, which reads thus: