- (1.) The petitioners impugn the order of the Superintending Canal Officer dated January 12, 1971 (Annexure 1) whereby the Warabandi as it was operating from April 27, 1967, has been altered. As per the earlier Warabandi the watercourse in question used to irrigate the land of respondent Nos. 1 to 9 first, thereafter land of the petitioners and then that of respondent No. 10. According to the presently impugned alteration, the order of irrigation has been changed, i.e., the petitioner's land would be irrigated first then, Shankar Devi's (respondents 1 to 9) and and then that of respondent No. 10. This, as per the order, has been done in the interest of better irrigation. How does it improve or betters the irrigation has nowhere been stated in the order. Thus, the order on the face of it is cryptic and discloses no reason in support of the conclusion recorded therein. As per the site plan, Annexure 'A' I find that if one has to go with the flow of the water in the watercourse, land of Shankar Devi (respondents 1 to 9) comes first, then comes the land of the petitioners and land of Hukam Singh, respondent No. 10 lies away from the water course at the back of the land of Shankar Devi. How it serves the interest of irrigation if the petitioners are made to take their Wari first, is not clear.
(2.) For the reasons recorded above, I set aside the impugned order of the Superintending Canal Officer and send the case back to him to redecide the whole issue by passing a speaking order after hearing the parties concerned. No costs. Petition accepted. Case remanded.;