Jit Singh vs Superintending Canal Officer

M. M. Punchhi, J. (Oral)

A quasijudicial order, passed in reversal by the Superintending Canal Officer, respondent No. 1, is the subjectmatter of challenge in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Canal water irrigation facilities were available to the land mortgaged with the petitioner by respondent No. 5. The Deputy Collector, respondent No. 3, framed a Warabandi whereby the Naka of the petitioner was fixed at point ''A'' shown in the plan Annexure ''A'' to the writ petition. As averred by the petitioner, the Warabandi was framed at his back and was to his disadvantage. He preferred an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, respondent No. 2, under the relevant provisions of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act. The same was allowed. Rather respondent No. 5 conceded the claim of the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 preferred a revision petition before the Superintending Canal Officer who upset the appellate order of the Divisional Canal Officer, vide order dated 21st April, 1973 (Annexure ''D'' to the petition).

The sole grouse of the petitioner is that the order in reversal is not a speaking order. It has further been stated that the Motion Bench on July 24, 1973, while admitting the writ petition, had specially observed in the order that it was not a speaking order. The order reads as under :

"Not a speaking order. Notice V. early. Sd. Harbans Singh.

Sd. Prem Chand Jain."

It is now contended that the order of the Division Bench leaves no doubt that the impugned order was considered to be not a speaking order. A bare perusal of the impugned order also reveals that the arguments raised in favour of the petitioner by the appellate officer, respondent No. 2, were not negatived by the revising authority, respondent No. 1. The order appears to be rather cryptic. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that these being quasijudicial authorities were not expected to write a judgment of the standard with which a judicial officer would. That is undoubtedly so, but all the same a quasijudicial order passed in reversal of an order of quasijudicial authority must ex facie reveal reasons for upsetting the view. That is not present in the present case.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed, the impugned order of the Superintending Canal Officer, respondent No. 1, Annexure D to the writ petition, is set aside and he is required to reexamine the matter and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. It is made clear that since this Court did not stay the operation of the impugned order while this petition remained pending, status quo as it exists today would continue till the matter is disposed of by the Superintending Canal Officer.

The Superintending Canal Officer would issue notice to the parties for a date suitable to him. No costs.