Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Jai Narain son of Ramji Lal (respondent No. 4) and others filed an application before the Deputy Collector, Nehrana, Water Services, Sirsa (respondent No. 3) for changing his turn of water (wari) from Khata No. 56 to Khata No. 34 on running watercourse and claimed usual Jharai and Bharai, without impleading petitioner Krishan son of Jee Ram as a party. The Deputy Collector recommended that since the matter is sub-judice in civil Court, so, the warabandi may not be finalized, by virtue of order dated 3.3.2009 (Annexure P1). Respondent No. 4 filed the appeal, which was dismissed by the Divisional Canal Officer (for brevity "the DCO") (respondent No. 2), by means of impugned order dated 29.6.2009 (Annexure P2). In the wake of revision petition by respondent No. 4, the Superintending Canal Officer (for short "the SCO") (respondent No. 1) modified the order (Annexure P2), by way of impugned order dated 8.1.2010 (Annexure P3), which, in substance, is as under:- "After receiving the suggestion/recommendation of Divisional Canal Officer, was taken into consideration and the same was found almost right solution of the issue among the parties as due to this arrangement the waris of the petitioners can be consolidated and the respondent will also get the water running at his sanctioned taking point. In view of above circumstances the wari of Khata No., 34 and 35 of the petitioners are ordered to be fixed continuously prior to the wari of Khara No. 34/1 of the respondent to avoid any loss of wari or the irrigation of any parties. The decision of the lower courts are modified upto this extent and revision petitions are disposed off accordingly under Section 55(6) of the Canal Act. Decision be conveyed."
(2.) The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P2 and P3), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) After hearing the counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, as the impugned orders cannot legally be sustained, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context.;