JIT SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A quasi-judicial order, passed in reversal by the Superintending Canal Officer, respondent No. 1, is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Canal water irrigation facilities were available to the land mortgaged with the petitioner by respondent No. 5. The Deputy Collector, respondent No. 3, framed a Warabandi whereby the Naka of the petitioner was fixed at point 'A' shown in the plan Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. As averred by the petitioner, the Warabandi was framed at his back and was to his disadvantage. He preferred an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, respondent No. 2, under the relevant provisions of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act. The same was allowed. Rather respondent No. 5 conceded the claim of the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 preferred a revision petition before the Superintending Canal Officer who upset the appellate order of the Divisional Canal Officer, vide order dated 21st April, 1973 (Annexure 'D' to the petition).

(3.) The sole grouse of the petitioner is that the order in reversal is not a speaking order. It has further been stated that the Motion Bench on July 24, 1973, while admitting the writ petition, had specially observed in the order that it was not a speaking order. The order reads as under :-