DHARAMBIR SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dated 8.12.2010 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Superintending banal Officer, whereby the orders dated 1.10.2010 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Divisional Canal Officer and 12.4.2010 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Deputy Collector, Water Services Division, Jind-respondent No. 3, were upheld thereby changing the warabandi (turn of water') of the petitioner, by passing non speaking and cryptic orders. Undisputed facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that an application was moved before the Deputy Collector, Water Services Division, Jind-respondent No. 3, by the shareholders of RD-78600-R for refixation of warabandi (turn of water). Pursuant to the application aforementioned, warabandi was prepared by Ziledar and Halqa Patwari, showing the turn of water of the petitioner at Sr. No. 43 and that of the Gaushala at Sr. No. 44. However, vide impugned order dated 12.4.2010 (Annexure P-2.), respondent No. 3 has fixed the turn of water of respondent no.4 after the Gaushala at Sr. No. 40, whereas the turn of water of the petitioner has been fixed at Sr. No. 44, as depicted from Annexure P-3. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed his appeal before respondent No. 2, who dismissed the same, vide order dated 1.10.2010 (Annexure P-5) and thereafter the appeal was also dismissed by respondent No. 1, vide impugned order dated 8.12.2010 (Annexure P-7. Feeling aggrieved against the above said impugned orders, the petitioner has approached this court by way of instant petition, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, whereas a separate written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 4.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders, besides being totally non speaking and cryptic, are also contrary to the fact situation obtaining at the site. He relies upon the site plan (Annexure P-9), to contend that admittedly, land of the petitioner comes first than the land of respondent No. 4 and earlier petitioner was getting his turn of water before respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays for allowing the writ petition and for setting aside the impugned orders.