Jasbir Singh, J.@mdashIn the present writ petition, dispute is regarding turn of water (warabandi) of a watercourse at outlet RD 17720-R Kohli Minor of villages Adampur and Sadalpur, District Hissar. Prior to the year 1992, the turn of water at the above mentioned watercourse was running as per agreement of the shareholders. In the year 1991, one Om Parkash shareholder moved application for fixing the turn of water of the shareholders. Matter was taken up by the then Deputy Collector, Hissar, who vide order dated 6.2.1992 (P-2) fixed the turn of water on watercourse as is shown in the Site Plan (P-1) with green lines. Respondent Sahi Ram was not satisfied with order above mentioned. He filed an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, Hissar, which was dismissed on 1.5.1992 (P-3). Respondent Sahi Ram then filed a revision petition before the Superintending Canal Officer, Hissar, who vide order dated 19.8.1992 (P-4), accepted the revision petition, set aside the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer and ordered that turn of water be amended and Shri Sahi Ram-respondent No. 4 was held entitled to ''residue water'' in the watercourse.
2. Thereafter, Deputy Collector, Hissar vide his order dated 6.4.1993 (P-5) fixed the turn of water of the shareholders, copy of the list is annexed as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition. He communicated the same to the Ziledar of the area vide communication dated 6.4.1993 (P-6). As per allegations in the writ petition, the turn of water was actually implemented and made operational by the Ziledar in the year 1993. The shareholders continued to get irrigation as per turn of water fixed vide Annexure P-5. No objection was raised by anybody. In the month of September, 2000, Deputy Collector of his own, again took up the matter and shifted the turn of water of Sahi Ram-respondent No. 4 after the turn of water of the petitioner and other shareholders vide his order dated 15.9.2000 (P-7). This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Divisional Canal Officer, Hissar, who by a detailed order dated 22.12.2000 (P-9), allowed his appeal and ordered that the interim stay granted by him on 13.11.2000 (P-8) shall continue till the amendment of the list again. Aggrieved by the order Annexure P-9, respondent No. 4-Sahi Ram filed a revision petition before respondent No. 3, who vide his order dated 31.10.2001 (P-10), allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No. 4. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 31.10.2001 (P-10) passed by respondent No. 3.
3. At the time of the preliminary hearing, Shri Shailendra Jain, Advocate appeared for Sahi Ram on whose behalf he has filed an application u/s 148-A of the CPC in this Court.
4. Counsel for the parties heard. Shri Venna appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that the order passed by respondent No. 3 is totally a non-speaking one. It gives no reasoning whatsoever which justifies the reversal of the order Annexure P-9 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer which is a detailed one. He further submitted that initially, after the decision of respondent No. 3, vide order dated 19.8.1992, the turn of water was fixed by the then Deputy Collector vide order dated 6.4.1993. Petitioner was getting water after respondent No. 4 as is apparent from the list above mentioned. The arrangement continued without any objection from respondent No. 4 for more than seven years and in the month of September, 2000 vide Annexure P-7 the then Deputy Collector changed the turn of water showing the petitioner before respondent No. 4 and other shareholders. The said change was affected without any notice and without hearing the petitioner. Appeal filed by him was rightly allowed by the Divisional Canat Officer. He further stated that the order Annexure P-10 passed by respondent No. 3 deserves to be quashed, being devoid of any reasoning.
5. Shri Shalilendra Jain appearing for respondent No. 4-Caveator has contended that his land falls at the end of the watercourse which is a main watercourse. The land of the petitioner falls at branch watercourse and as such his turn as per Rules has rightly been before the turn of the water of respondent No. 4. He further stated that in the year 1992, the order Annexure P-4 was not implemented correctly and now at his instance the Deputy Collector has implemented the order vide Annexure P-7 dated 15.9.2000 in its true perspective. He prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case in view of the fact that order Annexure P-10 dated 31.10.2001 passed by respondent No. 3 is totally a non-speaking one. The order do not disclose any reasoning as to how and why the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer Annexure P-9 is not correct. The order Annexure P-10 has been passed without any application of mind. It does not refer to any of the documents/orders on the file i.e. P-1 to P-9. Furthermore, it is not apparent as to from where Serial Nos. 178 and 177 regarding turn of water of respondent No. 4 and one Sat Pal has been noticed. As is apparent from the list of warabandi Annexures P-5 and P-7, these Serial Nos. 177 and 178 do not find mention therein. Respondent No. 3 was exercising the powers under the provisions of the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, 1974. The quasi judicial authorities are expected to apply their mind which must reflect in the reasoning given by the authorities in their orders. So far as the order Annexure P-10 is concerned, it is total a vague one, no facts have been mentioned, no arguments have been noticed and referred to and no reasoning is apparent as to how the conclusion is arrived at by respondent No. 3. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to go into further details of the present litigation and the order Annexure P-10 can be quashed in view of the reasoning given above.
7. The writ petition is allowed. Order dated 31.10.2001 (Annexure P-10) is quashed and the matter is remanded back to respondent No. 3 to decide it afresh and dispose it of by 11 passing a reasoned and speaking order. Parties are directed to appear before re spondent No. 3 on 25.3.2002. No order as to costs.
Sd/- N.K. Sodhi, J.
