AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral)
The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated January 27, 2000 and February 20, 2001. Copies of these orders have been placed on the record as Annexures P2 and P1 respectively. By the order dated January 27, 2000, the Divisional Canal Officer had made adjustments regarding the turn of water of the various cosharers whose lands were being irrigated. It was found that additional area having been attached to the outlet, certain adjustments were necessary. Consequently, after spot inspection, minor adjustments ranging from 0.2 minute to 0.5 minute were made. The adjustment was dependent upon the nature of the water channel. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer. It was dismissed vide order dated February 20, 2001. Hence this petition.
We have heard Mr. Cheema, learned counsel for the petitioners. He contends that the action of the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer in reducing the turn of water is illegal as no such alteration had been made by the Divisional Canal Officer.
It is admitted that 14.50 acres of land was added to the outlet. Necessarily some adjustment was necessary. This adjustment has been made by the officers at the spot. There is no violation of any provision of law. No interference is called for.
The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.