Priyanka 2025.08.13 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Priyanka 2025.08.13 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Priyanka 2025.08.13 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Priyanka 2025.08.13 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document In Sham Sunder v. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur, 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 35; a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- “5. Even otherwise, we find no ground to interfere. The Canal Authorities are the best judges for the situation at the spot. If on a consideration of the matter it has been found that the fields of the petitioner can be properly irrigated from the existing outlet, this court cannot interfere in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution unless it is shown that the order is patently illegal and arbitrary. Nothing of the sort has been pointed out…” 9. In Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(67) RCR (Civil) 760; a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- “…We are of the opinion that the matter of transfer of an area from one outlet to another by the canal authorities should be Priyanka 2025.08.13 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document seldom interfered with in the writ jurisdiction, particularly when the canal authorities had taken the decision after hearing the interested parties and in the interest of better irrigation, and also considering that while making such transfer, the maximum land will be properly irrigated…” Priyanka 2025.08.13 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document