IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (213) Vijender & others Chief Canal Officer, BWS Unit, Haryana Irrigation & Water Resources Department, Haryana & others CORAM : Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI 1. passed by the Learned Single Judge which, grievance raised by the appellants to by the Chief Canal Officer with regard to the grant of outlet RD instead of outlet at RD present appeal 2. Canal Officer made by the Superintending Canal Officer (Annexure P higher than adjoining land ignored by Chief Canal Officer not been considered by to the appellants. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vijender & others Versus Chief Canal Officer, BWS Unit, Haryana Irrigation & Water Resources Department, Haryana & others CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the appellant (s). Mr.Sandeep Chhabra, Addl.A.G., Haryana. Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate Ms.Sumitra, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 9. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present Letters Patent Appeal, challenge is to the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP grievance raised by the appellants to by the Chief Canal Officer with regard to the grant of outlet RD instead of outlet at RD-78050L, was declined, which is incorrect, hence, the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that Canal Officer vide order dated 03.04.2017 has set made by the Superintending Canal Officer (Annexure P-2) but, the height of the field higher than adjoining land, which is to be irrigat ignored by Chief Canal Officer while passing such order not been considered by the Learned Single Judge to the appellants. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-571-2020 (O&M) Decided on : 04.09.2025 ……Appellant(s) Chief Canal Officer, BWS Unit, Haryana Irrigation & Water Resources ……Respondent(s) HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the appellant (s). Mr.Sandeep Chhabra, Addl.A.G., Haryana. s.Sumitra, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 9. , J. (Oral) In the present Letters Patent Appeal, challenge is to the order CWP-7990-2017 dated 13.02.2020 by grievance raised by the appellants to the order dated 03.04.2017 passed by the Chief Canal Officer with regard to the grant of outlet RD-80800L , was declined, which is incorrect, hence, the Learned counsel for the appellants argues that while the Chief ide order dated 03.04.2017 has set aside the recommendations made by the Superintending Canal Officer in order dated 27.10.2016 but, the height of the field belonging to appellants, which is , which is to be irrigated through the canal, has bee while passing such order, which fact has also the Learned Single Judge, which is causing prejudice 2020 (O&M) Decided on : 04.09.2025 ……Appellant(s) ……Respondent(s) In the present Letters Patent Appeal, challenge is to the order dated 13.02.2020 by passed 80800L , was declined, which is incorrect, hence, the the Chief aside the recommendations dated 27.10.2016 belonging to appellants, which is , has been , which fact has also which is causing prejudice SAILESH RANJAN 2025.09.09 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-571-2020 (O&M) -2- 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.5 to 9 submits that though, the order dated 03.04.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Chief Canal Officer has been upheld by the Learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 13.02.2020, but still, in case any difficulty is faced by the appellants, liberty is given to them to approach the Canal Authority for redressal of the same and therefore, the impugned order dated 13.02.2020 passed by Learned Single Bench needs no interference by this Court. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that, as of now, the appellants are getting the water from outlet RD-80800L for purpose of irrigation of their land and 5 years have been passed since the land is being irrigated by the outlet in question, and in case, if any difficulty is being faced by appellants so as to irrigate the land, they have the liberty to challenge the outlet RD-78050L, and if such representation is made by appellants so as to irrigate the land, keeping in view the height of the land, the same is not being irrigated from said outlet, due consideration will be given to the said fact by the Chief Canal Officer and in case need be, to amend the order dated 03.04.2017 (Annexure P-3), the same will be done. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present appeal may kindly be disposed of as having been not pressed, with liberty to file a representation before the Chief Canal Officer, raising their grievance, for his consideration. 6. Ordered accordingly. 7. It is made clear that any such representation is made, all the parties will be heard before passing appropriate order(s). (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 04.09.2025 (VIKAS SURI) Sailesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No SAILESH RANJAN 2025.09.09 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document