CWP No.6785 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.6785 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.11.2010 Gurnam Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Kartar Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for respondent no.1 to 4. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for setting aside orders dated 19.9.2006 and 29.12.2008, passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Water Services Division, Safidon and the Chief Canal Officer/YWSU, Haryana Irrigation Deptt., Panchkula. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Divisional Canal Officer accepted an application filed by the private respondents and sanctioned a new outlet bearing No.RD-3500-R on the Aftabgarh Minor for irrigating 102 acres in village Aftabgarh. The petitioners filed an appeal, which was accepted by the Superintending Canal Officer by recording cogent reasons for accepting the appeal. The Chief Canal Officer, however, accepted the appeal filed by private respondents by merely recording that a perusal of the revenue record , the khaka plan, the report and other relevant CWP No.6785 of 2009 2 documents reveals that as only one outlet has been sanctioned and is functioning at RD 6600/TC, the demand of the private respondents is genuine. It is argued that the Chief Canal Officer has failed to deal with reasons, recorded by the Superintending Canal Officer, for reversing the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer. Counsel for the State of Haryana submits that the order passed by the Chief Canal Officer is legal and valid, as it was passed on the basis of the record. It is further submitted that conditions set out in the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer are irrelevant and are even otherwise not germane to the dispute in hand. No one is present on behalf of respondents no.5 and 6, nor has any reply been filed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. An application filed by respondents no.5 and 6 for providing a new outlet on Aftabgarh Minor was allowed by the Divisional Canal Officer. This order was set aside by the Superintending Canal Officer by recording the following findings :- “(1) there forms no continuity of area of two villages who are desirous of keeping their source of irrigation from O/L RD 3500-R Aftabgarh Minor. (2) The irrigation of block area of 57/57 acre of V. Aftabtgarh from existing source of O/L 11960- Paju Mr. is 71 % which is quite satisfactory. (3) The block area of 45/45 acre of V. Rodh is not possible to be irrigated from proposed outlet RD 3500-R CWP No.6785 of 2009 3 Aftabgarh Mr. being the levels do not permit. (4) In case the area in question is kept on outlet RD 3500-R, as demanded, the lined W/C 34 acres long shall become unfruitful and the expenditure incurred on its construction shall go waste. (5) This will result in smaller outlets having less than 0.50 Cs. discharge, which is against the spirit of new instructions on this subject. (6) Aftabgarh Mr. is small Minor specially designed for a large chak of 903/884 acres at tail outlet and in case any outlet is sanctioned in between RD 0 to tail, the irrigation of tail area at large may suffer. (7) The chakbandi of this Minor has been recently sanctioned by the CCO, which is yet to be implemented at site, after approval of A-form. The bottle necks regarding irrigation shall be seen only after its running during at least 3 crops after construction of Water- courses.” The Chief Canal Officer, accepted the revision filed by respondents no.5 and 6, without dealing with the reason set out by the Superintending Canal Officer and passed a non-speaking order. A relevant extract of the order passed by the Chief Canal Officer reads as follows :- “ The grievances of the appellants, respondents and some others were heard in detail. From the perusal of revenue record, Khaka plan, report and other relevant CWP No.6785 of 2009 4 documents produced in the court by the revenue staff, it has been observed that only one out let has been sanctioned and functioning at RD 6600/TC of Aftabgarh minor from its head to tail. Therefore the demand of the appellants seems to be genuine one. Hence appeal of the appellants is accepted.” A perusal of the order passed by the Chief Canal Officer reveals that the points referred to in the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer have neither been dealt with, nor adverted to. The Chief Canal Officer is a quasi judicial authority, exercising quasi judicial powers under the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 and is, therefore, required while deciding a revision, to record reasons in support of his conclusions. In the absence of any reasons, much less a process of reasoning, the order passed by the Chief Canal Officer is non speaking and must, therefore, be set aside. In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 29.12.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Chief Canal Officer/YWSU, Haryana Irrigation Deptt. Panchkula, to decide the matter, in accordance with law, within three months from receipt of a certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the Chief Canal Officer/YWSU, Haryana Irrigation Deptt. Panchkula, on 20.1.2011. 29.11.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE