Civil Writ Petition No. 16898 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 16898 of 2008 Date of Order: 20.07.2010 Smt. Hardev Kaur and another ....Petitioners Versus Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.G.S.Lalli ,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.S.Brar, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondents no.4 & 5. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 21.08.2008, passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala Circle, Irrigation Branch, Patiala. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the private respondents' prayer to fix their turn of water has been allowed by the Superintending Canal Officer, without passing a reasoned order. It is further submitted that the so called agreement, is null and void and even otherwise no water course was excavated on the basis of any agreement. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that pursuant to an agreement between the son of petitioner Civil Writ Petition No. 16898 of 2008 -2- no.1 and the private respondents, a private water course was duly excavated. The petitioners, thereafter, filed an application praying that their turn of water be fixed at this water course. The Superintending Canal Officer has examined the matter in its entirety and has rightly fixed the turn of water of the private respondents at the existing water course. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and failed to comprehend the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, which reads as follows:- “Case file perused. Site plan seen. Discussions were held with the filed staff. The statements recorded by the parties present in the court have been considered minutely. Thereafter it has been found by the court that the decision of Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa Division, I.B. Jawaharke dated 27.2.2008 is not based on the facts and the same is rejected keeping in view the technical aspects and situation of site. For the better irrigation, the appeal of the appellants under section 68(6) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 8 of 1873 is hereby accepted.” A perusal of the above extract leaves no manner of doubt that, while accepting the appeal, filed by private respondents, the Superintending Canal Officer, failed to support his conclusion by reasons much less by a discernible process of reasoning. The dispute, as noticed in the preceding paragraphs, relates to a prayer, by the private respondents that their turn of water should be fixed at Civil Writ Petition No. 16898 of 2008 -3- a particular water course. The Superintending Canal Officer has neither adverted to nor decided this dispute. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 21.08.2008 is set aside the matter the remitted to the Superintending Canal Officer to decide the appeal afresh and in accordance with law, within three months from receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, during the pendency of the appeal, parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the water course and the turn of water. Parties are directed to appear before the Superintending Canal Officer, on 07.09.2010. July 20, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE