RANJIT SINGH, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has a grievance against the prayer of the private respondents allowed shifting of outlet from Moga No. 26300-L Rajbaha Muradwala Minor to a point in between the line of Muraba No. 80 and 90 i.e. 5 killas downstream. The scheme was prepared in the year 2008 and the order shifting the Moga from point 'A' to 'B' as shown in the site plan was passed. This was done as private respondents did not get proper irrigation from the outlet as the earlier outlet was on to one side of the chak.
(2.) HAVING remained unsuccessful before DCO and SCO, the petitioner earlier approached this Court, when the case was remanded to the SCO for fresh consideration after keeping in mind the report given by the DCO. The parties appearing before SCO after remand. The SCO took help of the counsel appointed amicus curiae with the concurrence of the parties. The said Advocate, accordingly, visited the spot in the presence both the parties and gave his inspection report. Relying on this inspection report, the SCO has now passed the fresh order shifting Moga from point A to B. The grievance of the petitioner, which is now made through the present writ petition, is two fold. It is first contended that the SCO was to keep in mind the report given by the Xen and his action in taking the help of the counsel by appointing him as Amicus Curie and then relying on this report would not be in consonance with the order as passed by this Court. Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, points out that this was agreed order and the counsel, who conducted spot inspection for which both the parties had agreed. Counsel for the petitioner, thereafter, submits that copy of this report was not supplied to the parties concerned and the case was decided by taking the said report into consideration. The order was not passed on the date of hearing but was subsequently passed relying on this report. The plea is that the parties did not get chance to see this inspection spot report and raised objection against the same. It would have been appropriate for the SCO to supply the copy of this report to the parties and allow them to raise objection, if any, against this report. The sport inspection may have been carried out in the presence of the parties concerned but still they had a right to object to the same and that objection generally could have been made only in case the copy of inspection spot report was supplied to the parties. This mode would be in violation of principle of natural justice as the report was relied upon while passing the order. It would, therefore, be appropriate to remand the case to the SCO to re-decide the same after supplying copy of the report to the parties concerned. The parties would be at liberty to file objection to this report and thereafter the SCO may decide the case in accordance with law. Since the parties have voluntarily agreed for appointment of this counsel to carry out spot inspection, the earlier order passed by this Court to keep in mind the report of DCO may not have left with much relevance as the spot inspection is now done in the presence of the parties.
(3.) THIS writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before SCO on;