Ranjit Singh, J.@mdashLearned Counsel for the petitioners states that transfer as ordered and upheld by the Chief Canal Officer of the land belonging to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 would cause prejudice to the petitioners as their turn is likely to get reduced. Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, however, would submit that their area of approximately 16 acres is already on this outlet and another area of 6 acres has been transferred to this outlet for consolidation and, thus, the complete land is on this outlet. Otherwise also, I have perused the impugned order. Except for pleading that there is some loss to the petitioners, no other ground really is made out, which may require consideration. The issue has apparently been considered by all the canal authorities and it is noticed that it will be in the interest of better irrigation that the scheme regarding the area of transfer of this land of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is approved. It would lead to consolidating their entire holding on this outlet. This view is reasonable and would not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
2. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
