JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA,J - (1.) THE application of respondents No. 5 to 7 for shifting of their land from Outlet No. RD 72000-R to Outlet No. RD 74000-R for irrigation has been accepted by the competent authority. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) MR . Sanjeev Gupta, Counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders passed by the authorities are not in conformity with law. Thus, these should be quashed. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, respondents No. 5 to 7 have land measuring 16.32 acres. It was being irrigated from Outlet No. RD 72000-R. They had filed an application for shifting of their land to Outlet No. RD 74000-R. It was alleged that Outlet No. RD 74000-R abuts on their land. The Division Canal Officer had examined the matter and found that "the area in question is near the head of proposed source i.e. Outlet No. RD 74000-R....". Thus, he had accepted the request. It was also observed that this would be subject to confirmation or modification by the Superintending Canal Officer. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer. By order dated November 25, 1998, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.2, the Superintending Canal Officer accepted the appeal on the ground that "the area under transfer is getting proper irrigation....". Aggrieved by this order, respondents No. 5 to 7 had filed an appeal before the Chief Canal Officer. On consideration of the matter, the Chief Canal Officer has found that the shifting of the area would be "most suitable for proper irrigation.... and its irrigation is bound to increase with the purposed transfer." Thus, the appeal of respondents No. 5 to 7 was allowed.
(3.) MR . Gupta contends that the Chief Canal Officer has accepted the appeal without assigning any reason.;