PARAMJEET SINGH, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for India for quashing of order dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure P/5) passed by respondent No.1 ­ Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur (for short 'SCO') and order dated 07.10.2009 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Harike, Canal Division, Ferozepur (for short 'DCO') under the provisions of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application dated 22.02.2006 before the DCO for transferring their land from outlet No. 55000/R (1 -R) Mudki Minor to outlet No. 59625/R (1 -R) Mudki Minor on the ground that watercourse irrigating the land is broken and they are not getting proper irrigation, therefore, their land be shifted. The said application was examined by various authorities and ultimately, the demand was accepted by the DCO vide order dated 05.10.2006. Thereafter, an appeal filed by the petitioners before the SCO was accepted and the case was remanded to the DCO vide order dated 03.12.2007. The DCO, after hearing the claim of the private respondents and the objections raised by the petitioners, re -decided the matter vide order dated 29.07.2009 (Annexure P/3), rejecting the claim of the private respondents for shifting the land from outlet No.55000/R (1 -R) Mudki Minor. The private respondents filed an appeal before the SCO. Vide order dated 15.09.2009, the SCO again remanded the case to the DCO for reconsideration. The DCO accepted the contention of the private respondents and shifted the land vide order dated 07.10.2009 (Annexure P/4). Thereafter, the petitioners preferred appeal before the SCO, which has been dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure P/5). Hence, this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that earlier the prayer of the private respondents had been rejected by the DCO. There is no change in the grounds to again accept the claim for transfer of the area of the private respondents from outlet No. 55000/R (1 -R) Mudki to outlet No. 59625/R (1 -R) Mudki Minor. Major Singh, Harjinder Singh etc. other shareholders have been illegally shown to be consenting party. They are small shareholders. As such, order dated 07.10.2009 (Annexure P/4) of the DCO and dismissal of the appeal by the SCO is against the settled principles of law.;