V.K. Bali, J. - (1.) Even on second call, no one has chosen to appear on behalf of the contesting respondent, i.e., respondent No. 3. For the first time, it was called at its turn and for the second time it has been called at the end of cause list even after passed over matters.
(2.) Challenge herein is to the order Annexure P.4, dated August 28, 2001, passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, who while hearing appeal filed on behalf of respondent No.3, set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Annexure P -3, dated August 2, 2001. The impugned order reads thus: "The Revenue Missal and Khaka Plan has been examined carefully. The parties who attended the Court were given due opportunity for putting their grievances, The watercourse in dispute in Reel, and Killa No.38/11 Min. 20(AB) area of village Maduwana was running at site has been dismantled. Hence I order the restoration of watercourse AB in Ree1, and Killa No.38/11 Min. 20 as shown on Khaka plan. The irrigation of the appellate is being suffered. Keeping in view the facts the appeal is accepted. The decision of the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Uklana at Sunlana Sub Division dated 2.8.2001 is set aside being natural justice."
(3.) Reading of the order, reproduced above, would show that Divisional Canal Officer did not apply his mind to the facts of the case at all. The Officer did not even choose to go through the order passed by Sub Divisional Canal Officer and the reasons given by him. The impugned order is cryptic and non -speaking and has come into being without taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties. That being so, the order passed by Divisional Canal Officer, impugned in the present petition, needs to be set aside. So ordered. The matter is remitted to Divisional Canal Officer to decide the' appeal afresh by passing a well reasoned and speaking order after noticing the contentions of the parties.;