JUDGMENT
Jasbir Singh, J.
1. The petitioners by filing the present writ petition have challenged the order dated May 16, 2001 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Bani Water Services Division, Sirsa, respondent No. 1, and order dated June 5, 2001 (Annexure P-5) passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Sirsa Water Services Division, Sirsa. It has been contended in the writ petition that as per the site plan Annexure P-l, the petitioners are owners and in possession of area shown in yellow colour and the private respondents are owners and in possession of area shown in orange colour. There is another area shown in green colour in the said site plant. Previously this area was owned by Begraj etc. and the same was purchased by the petitioners vide a sale deed dated May 10, 2001. It has been further contended that when the land shown in green colour in the site plan was in possession of Begraj etc., they were getting water from the watercourse shown as DA in the site plan Annexure P-l and the area shown in ‘orange’ colour (small portion of the respondents) was getting irrigation through the watercourse shown as CX&Y. The watercourse DA was dismantled by the private respondents. Then Begraj moved an application before the Canal Authorities to restore the same. As a counter-blast respondent Balraj Singh also moved an application that the portion of the watercourse shown as ‘AB’ has been dismantled by Begraj and the same may also be restored. Both these applications were heard together at that time and then Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Bani, ordered the restoration of the watercourse shown as DA on permanent basis and AB on temporary basis for a period of six months on the Eastern side of Rectangle No. 102/5,6,15 and 16 through the land of said Begraj upto April, 1999, vide order Annexure P-2. (In the present dispute the earlier watercourse which was shown as XY& Z is now being referred as DA&B). Order Annexure P-2 was challenged by respondent No. 3 Balraj Singh and after hearing the parties, i.e. sons of Begraj etc., it was ordered that both the watercourse XY and YZ (now DA and AB) be restored upto April, 1999. Private respondents never challenged the said order and qua them it has become final. It has further been stated that Begraj etc. filed CWP No. 4302 of 1999 for quashing the order Annexure P-3 but ultimately the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on April 30, 2001 and having become infructuous because both the watercourses had been restored only upto April, 1999. As already stated the land of Begraj etc. was purchased by the present petitioners on May 10, 2001. It has further been contended in the writ petition that orders Annexure P-2 and P-3 were never implemented at the spot but in a very mala fide manner the respondents moved one application before respondent No. 1 stating therein that the watercourse which was restored in the year 1999 has been dismantled again by the petitioners and the same be got restored. The said application was opposed by the petitioners but they failed before respondent No. 1 who vide order dated May 16, 2001 (Annexure P-4) directed the restoration of the watercourse DA&B. Appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide order dated June 5, 2001 (Annexure P-5). Hence this writ petition.
2. Upon notice of motion, the respondents appeared. Respondents No. 3 and 4 filed a written statement controverting all the allegations made by the petitioners, the official respondents have not filed any written-statement in the present case.
3. We have heard counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.
4. Sh. Ashok Verma learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the orders Annexures P-4 and P-5 were passed without taking note of the orders Annexure P-2 and P-3. He has stated that vide the impugned orders, the watercourse DA&B (XY&Z in the
earlier orders) was ordered to be restored upto April, 1999, only and in fact it was never restored at the site. The litigation continued till April 30,2001, when the writ petition filed by Begraj etc. was dismissed as withdrawn as having become infructuous. He has further contended that the official respondents have failed to notice his contentions regarding the existence of alternative watercourse. It has further been argued that the orders Annexure P-4 and P-5 being non-speaking ones deserve to be quashed.
5. As against above Sh. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Adv. for respondents No. 3 and 4 has contended that the orders Annexure P-4 and P-5 are justified. The petitioners have dismantled the watercourse which was ordered to be restored in the year 1999. It has further been contended that the watercourse has been ordered to be restored after spot inspection by the Canal Authorities.
6. On perusal of the records of the case it becomes apparent that the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners are genuine and correct. Vide Annexure P-2 and P-3, the watercourse in dispute was ordered to be restored upto April, 1999 only. Litigation continued even thereafter till April 30, 2001, when the writ petition filed by Begraj etc. was dismissed as withdrawn. It seems that the watercourse as ordered vide Annexure P-2 and P-3 was never restored at the site and at present in cannot be ordered to be restored. The alternative prayer of the counsel for the petitioner that even if the watercourse was restored, it was only upto April, 1999, and thereafter the private respondents have no right to use the said watercourse also seems to be correct.
7. Section 24(2) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads as under: –
“24. Restoration of demolished or altered etc. watercourse.-(1)….
(2) On receiving an application under sub-section (1) Sub-Divisional Canal Officer may after making such enquiry as he may deem fit, required by a notice in writing served on the person found to be responsible for so demolishing, altering, enlarging, obstructing or causing damage, to restore at his own cost, the watercourse or temporary watercourse to its original condition within such period not exceeding twenty-one days, as may be specified in the notice:
Provided that in case of a temporary watercourse its restoration shall not be for a period exceeding one year.(3) to (5)…..”
8. A bare reading of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act makes it very clear that the Canal Authorities are competent to restore a temporary watercourse only for a period not exceeding one year. The idea behind this, seems, that during the said period, the person interested may apply for a regular watercourse which has not been done in this case and in a very clever manner an attempt has been made to extend the relief which was given to the respondents only upto April, 1999. The same is not permissible as per law and as such the orders Annexure P-4 and P-5 are liable to be quashed on this score alone.
9. In Annexure P-4 an attempt has been made to justify the existence of watercourse by saying that after April, 1999, the watercourse continued to run on the basis of mutual consent between the present private respondents and Begraj etc. This fact does not seem to be correct firstly because no such assertion was made by the private respondents when they appeared before respondent No. 1 and secondly because no such averments have been made in the written statement filed before this Court. Respondent No. 1 has made an attempt only to justify his order by carving out the reasoning which otherwise is not correct as per the facts of the case.
10. Furthermore, both respondents No. 1 and 2 have not noticed the argument of the petitioners that there exists alternative watercourse for the land of the private respondents shown as CX&Y in the site plan Annexure P-l and they were getting water from the said watercourse. Specific averments have been made by the petitioners in this regard in paragraph No. 4, 8, 9(i) and 11 of the writ petition but in the written-statement
the respondents have failed to rebut the same. Mere sanction of the Warabandi(tum of water) of the private respondents on April 17, 2001, does not show the existence of the watercourse DA&B at the spot.
11. The next contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the order Annexure P-5 is non-speaking one is perfectly valid. After noticing the contentions of the petitioners, respondent No. 2 has failed to repel those contentions and the appeal was dismissed by passing non-speaking order which in our opinion is not justified. The quasi-judicial authorities are supposed to support their orders by reasoning and a speaking order is required to be passed by them. The contention of the counsel for the private respondents that since the watercourse was ordered to be restored in the year 1999, it cannot be dismantled and if dismantled, the same requires to be restored as has been done in the present case does not seem to be correct in view of the reasoning given above. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have given a finding without looking into the earlier litigation and also without noticing the contentions of the petitioners, as such the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
12. No other arguments has been adored by the counsel for the parties.
13. In view of the reasoning given above, this writ petition is allowed and order
dated May 16, 2001, Annexure P-4 passed by Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Bani Water
Services Sub Division, Sirsa, respondent No. 1 and order dated June 5, 2001, Annexure
P-5 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Sirsa Water Services Division, Sirsa, re
spondent No. 2 are quashed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.