K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE writ petition challenges an order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer (SCO), Ferozepur, directing the restoration of the alleged water course ABCD which the private respondent claimed had been dismantled by the petitioners. The Superintending Canal Officer was reversing an order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer (DCO), dismissing a plea for restoration of the alleged watercourse. A plan has been filed depicting the course of the canal ABCD. The private respondent's plea had been that the watercourse from outlet No. 75705R had been dismantled at the place BC by the petitioners, while the private respondent had himself dismantled CD portion. The DCO, after taking statements from the witnesses, found that the private respondent had water supply from other canal source to his land which was depicted in the same very plan as XYZD and he had no concern with taking water from ABC kanal 75705R. The SCO modified the order and ordered restoration by referring to an alleged statement of Kartar Chand, who had been the vendor of the private respondent. Kartar Chand's statement had been specifically brought out in the order of the DCO. I have seen through the statement and he has not made any such averment in the manner alleged to have been stated and recorded in the SCO's order. Kartar Chand's statement is re -produced as under: - Sr. No. 3 has stated that he has sold the area to Hari Chand and Kartar Chand. The turn of water of the area was in his name. The Nakka for taking water was 52M/8/1 -14 and for giving water 52M/9 -13 and threes no turn of anybody after that. The road which adjoins the area and which is 3 karam wide is separate. He has sold the land 4 -5 years back. The allotment of 3 karam kacha path which adjoins the area is in his name. Both the parties have no concern with it. Both the parties have their personal dispute for dismantling of the water course.
(2.) THIS statement does not indicate anywhere that there existed a channel in the portion upto CB and that the watercourse was from 75705. Counsel for the petitioners states that the canal rights could flow to a party through three sources (i) by course sanctioned by law; (ii) by agreement between the parties and (iii) by easement. There was no sanctioned course as orders passed by the authorities themselves show. The other two sources just do not arise even as per the contention raised by the third respondent.
(3.) I have seen through the order and find that the order passed by the SCO was laconic and not reasoned at all and he has merely modified while considering the decision of the DCO's order by reference to the alleged statement of the vendor Kartar Chand which statement was wrongly recorded to find a justification for reversing the order.;