- (1.) The petitioner prays for quashing of order, Annexure P-4, passed by Chief Canal Officer and order, Annexure P-2 passed by Divisional Canal Officer.
(2.) The petitioner was irrigating his land from water course ABC shown in site plan, Annexure P-1. There is another water course DEFGHI shown in red colour, from which respondent No.4 was irrigating his land. It is stated that land of respondent No.4 is on higher level of water course ABC and is not feasible to irrigate the land of respondent No.4 from water course ABC. Respondent No.4 moved an application for transfer of his area measuring 22.65 acres from Chak outlet RD6000/L to outlet RD61176/R. After receiving the recommendation of Ziledar and SDCO, finding this demand to be genuine, the case for draft scheme was prepared under Section 17 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (for short, "the Act"). The objections were thereafter invited and respondent No.3 allowed this prayer with further direction that required arrangement for water course will be made by respondent No.4 at his own level.
(3.) The petitioner filed an appeal against this decision, which was admitted and the order was finally set-aside on 14.6.2011 by Superintending Canal Officer. Aggrieved against this order, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before Chief Canal Officer, who is alleged to have passed a sketchy, cryptic and non-speaking order on 27.6.2012, while allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.4 and setting-aside the well-reasoned order passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner accordingly has approached this Court against the impugned order.;