LICHHMA Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has arisen in the following circumstances. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are owners of the land which petitioner No. 4 holds as a tenant under them and which is shown in blue in the plan appended to the petition as Annexure "A". Bhura Ram respondent No. 2, on the other hand, owns the land shown in that plan in red. These lands were all irrigated from a water-course known as R.D. No. 9005 T. F. Previously the nakka where the petitioners delivered water to respondent No. 2 was located at the junction of Killa Nos. 111/25 and 117/1. On an application made by petitioner No. 4 on behalf of himself and the other petitioners under Section 68 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The nakka was shifted by the Deputy Collector, Abohar on the 24th of October, 1968, to the east so as to be located at the junction of Killa Nos. 113/21 and 117/5 (Annexure "B"). An appeal taken by respondent No. 2 against the order of the Deputy Collector under Section 68(5) of the Act was dismissed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar on the 16th of May, 1969 (Annexure "C"). The orders in Annexures "B" and "C" both detail the reasons on which they are based.

(2.) The impugned order must be struck down for the simple reason that it is not a "speaking order". It is now well settled that the Superintending Canal Officer while dealing with an application for revision under the Act, exercise quasi-judicial powers so that it is incumbent upon him to indicate the reasons on the basis of which he takes a particular view (Tehal Singh and others V. The Superintending Canal Officer and others,1968 CurLJ 770, Kanhiya Lal and others V. Superintending Canal Officer and others,1969 PunLR 580), and S. Dalip Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others, 1969 PunLJ 61). A bare reading of the impugned order shows that it contains neither the points for determination nor the reasons for the findings given. It is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Accordingly I quash it and send the case back to the Superintending Canal Officer for redecision after hearing the parties over again and passing a suitable order in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Petition accepted. Case remanded.