- (1.) THIS Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment of a single judge dated October 3, 1969 dismissing the writ petition filed by Dassu appellant against the Superintending Canal Officer, the Divisional Officer and Ram Parkash respectively impleaded as respondents 1 to 3 and five other respondents. Facts leading to the appeal are as follows:2. The appellant and respondents 3 to 8 are shareholders of village Bhayapur. Their lands were being irrigated from R. D. 3500-R of the Bohar Distributory. Application was made by respondent No. 3 on July 24, 1967 praying that his area of 21-52 acres being served from R. D. 3500-R be transferred to R. D. 4335-R of Bohar Distributory. That application was dismissed without hearing respondent No. 3. Later on, respondent No. 2 pointed out to respondent No. 1 that the land of respondent No. 3 was already being irrigated from R. D. 4335-R. Exercising power under section 30-A (1) (b) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage, Act No. VIII of 1873 (hereinafter called the Act), respondent No. 2 suo motu drew up scheme making reallotment of the area of respondent No. 3 for its being served from R. D. 4335-R instead of R. D. 3500-R. The scheme was published. The appellant filed objections to the scheme so devised. Respondent No. 2 passed detailed order on March 19, 1968 holding that in his opinion respondent No. 3 being already served and served better from R. D. 4335-R, his area had been rightly transferred from outlet R. D. No. 3500-R and by so doing no harm or injury could be caused to any other person and that the transfer was in the interest of better irrigation. From that order, the appellant filed revision petition before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 agreed with the order of re-allotment of the area of respondent No. 3 to R. D. 4335-R and dismissed the revision petition. 3. Being dissatisfied with the above order of the canal authorities, the appellant filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution impugning the validity of the orders, by which the transfer of the area of respondent No. 3 from R. D. 3500-R to R. D. 4335-R had been upheld. 4. Mr. Satya Parkash Jain appearing on behalf of the appellant-contends that the application of respondent No. 3 having been dismissed, suo motu interference by respondent No. 2 under sub-section (2) of S. 30-B of the Act is not called for and that respondent No. 1 could not uphold the order of respondent No. 2 in revision preferred before him. The question, which requires determination is as to whether the order passed by respondent No. 2 after application of respondent No. 3 had been dismissed without hearing him, falls under Section 30-A, Clause (b) or under sub-s. (2) of S. 30-B of the Act. Section 30-A of the Act runs as under: " 30-A (1) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in this Act and subject to the rules prescribed by the State Government in this behalf, the (Divisional Canal) Officer may, on his own motion or on the application of a shareholder, prepare a draft scheme to provide for all or any of the matters, namely: (a) the construction, alteration, extension and alignment of any watercourse or re-alignment of any existing water-course. (b) reallotment of areas served by one watercourse to another; (c) the lining of any watercourse; (d) any other matter which is necessary for the proper maintenance and distribution of supply of water from a watercourse. " Sub-section (2) of Section 30-B is set out hereunder: 30-B (2) After considering such objection and suggestions, if any, the Divisional Canal Officer shall approve the scheme either as it was originally prepared or in such modified form as he may consider fit. " Respondent No. 2 interfered suo motu after the application made by respondent No. 3 had been dismissed without his being heard. As the language of Section 30-A shows, respondent No. 2 has the power on his own as well as on the application of a shareholder to prepare a draft scheme to provide reallotment of an area served by one watercourse to another. The order dated March 19, 1968 was passed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 3 under this provision and not under Section 30-B of the Act. It was in the preparation of the scheme that respondent No. 2 made provision for irrigation of the area of respondent No. 3 from R. D. 4335-R instead of R. D. 3500-R. There cannot be any gainsaying the fact that it is the Divisional Canal Officer, who is entitled to make a provision for a shareholder under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of S. 30-A of the Act. The order of respondent No. 2 having been passed in course of and for the purpose of preparation of scheme, as contemplated by Section 30-A and forming part of the scheme, no exception could be taken to it and this suo motu action even after dismissal of the application of respondent No. 3 for transfer of his area from R. D. 3500-R to R. D. 4335-R is fully called for Respondent No. 2 while considering objections claimed to have been filed on behalf of the appellant under sub-section (1) of S. 30-B of the Act, approved of the scheme as settled under Section 30-A (1) (b) of the Act. The two main considerations, which have prevailed with the canal authorities in not disturbing the arrangement of transfer in favour of respondent No. 3 made in the scheme, are that the area of respondent No. 3 was prior to the transfer, being served from R. D. 4335-R and that it was in the interest of better irrigation that the area of respondent No. 3 should be served from that R. D. If factual considerations, of which the canal authorities are the best judges, have prevailed with them in transfer of area of a Shareholder from one watercourse to another, no interference with the facts found by them in favour of that shareholder could be made in writ proceedings. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal has no force and is disallowed. There will be no order as to costs. 5. Appeal dismissed.;