IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4680 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 22, 2011 Bahadur Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Rajdeep Singh Tacoria, Advocate, for respondent No.3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. It appears that the petitioner filed an application under Section 55 of the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, 1974 (for short, ‘the Act’) for shifting his wari. There is one water outlet as shown in Annexure P-4, site plan, that opens in the field of respondent No.3 and continues further to irrigate the field of one CWP No.4680 of 2009 [2] Teka Ram. To the contrary, the land of the petitioner is being irrigated from outlet on the eastern side and not from the outlet that opens in the land of the private respondent. 2. Prayer of the petitioner is that his wari be fixed after Teka Ram. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 contends that the respondent No.3 has small land holding. In case the land of the petitioner is also put on the same water outlet and water course, the water course would run 24 hours which would be detrimental to the interests of the said respondent. 4. On perusal of Order dated 16.5.2007 (Annexure P-1) and Order dated 17.9.2007 (Annexure P-2), passed by Deputy Collector, Tohana Water Service Division, Tohana and Divisional Canal Officer, Tohana Water Service Division, Tohana, respectively, I find that no reasons have been assigned for allowing the request of the petitioner. 5. Revision filed by respondent No.3 has been accepted by the Superintending Canal Officer vide Order dated 11.8.2008 (Annexure P-3) while saying thus:- “As per statement of the counsel of the petitioner that Dy. Collector has shifted the wari of three persons on the application of one person and change the water course. As per order of Hon’ble High Court Punjab & Haryana in CWP No.4680 of 2009 [3] case of Satbir Singh Vs. DCO, Adampur the water course can not be changed in the proceeding of under section 55 of the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act and the power to change the water course is only under section 17 of the canal act. The circumstances has not been changed. The DCO and Dy. Collector has not been passed the speaking order. The Dy. Collector has decided the case after issuing the notice to the only one person. Keeping in view the above facts, I find no justification to disturb the existing of warabandi. Hence R.P. is accepted and the decision of Divisional Canal Officer dated 17.09.2007 is set-aside.” 6. Perusal of Orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 indicates that no reasons have been given. To the same effect is the finding recorded by the Superintending Canal Officer in impugned order Annexure P-3. Yet the case has not been remanded back to the prescribed authority under Section 55 of the Act viz. Deputy Collector. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed, with direction that Deputy Collector, Tohana, shall re-hear the matter in context of contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner as also respondent No.3 and pass a speaking order. Order dated 11.8.2008 (Annexure P-3) is hereby quashed. 8. The Deputy Collector shall be required to take into account the contentions of respondent No.3 to the effect that respondent has small land holding; that the water course through field of the respondent has been irrigating only field of Teka Ram; that in case request of the CWP No.4680 of 2009 [4] petitioner under Section 55 of the Act is allowed, it shall result in the change of water course also, which might be beyond the scope of Section 55 of the Act; and any other contention raised on behalf of the parties. The decision be taken within four weeks from today. 9. Copy of the order be given under signatures of Reader of the Bench. (AJAI LAMBA) March 22, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?