The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Executive Engineer to follow due process and the Appellate Authority's findings on the equitable supply of water and the procedure for claiming a kacha water-course.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, feeling aggrieved of the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Executive Engineer, so also the order dated 23.02.2021, passed by the Superintending Engineer, respondents Nos.3 and 2 respectively.

2. Precise facts relevant for controversy in hand are that the respondent No.4, who was having his land in Kilas Nos.1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 of Murabba No.16 of Chak 7G Chhoti, moved an application dated 25.01.2021 before the respondent No.3 and prayed that anew water-course be sanctioned at Kila No.25 of Murabba No.16, considering the fact that a permanent water-course has been constructed and he does not have a permanent naka.

3. According to the petitioner, as soon as he came to know about the application so filed by the respondent No.4, he lodged his objection in writing to such request.

4. The Executive Engineer, vide his order dated 25.01.2021, observed that looking to the crop season, no change be effected in the water turn, as prayed by the applicant (respondent No.4).

5. However, incumbent in the office of respondent No.3 changed; the new incumbent, vide his order dated 10.02.2021, abruptly accepted the application so filed by the respondent No.4 and ordered to provide an aad (kachcha water-course) from Kilas Nos.7 to 14 of Murabba No.16.

6. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 10.02.2021, passed by the respondent No.3, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2 - Superintending Engineer. The respondent No.3, after hearing petitioner so also respondent No.4 and the Executive Engineer, though technically allowed the appeal vide his order dated 23.02.2021, however, in the manner that the operation of the order dated 10.02.2021 has been kept in abeyance up to 15.04.2021.

7. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition calling in question the above order passed by the respondent No.2 -Superintending Engineer.

8. Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, apprising the Court about the necessary facts, submitted that the Superintending Engineer has, in no ambiguous terms, found that the respondent No.3 was not justified in passing the impugned order dated 10.02.2021, without hearing the petitioner and all other concerned parties. He added that the respondent No.2, had though technically allowed the appeal, but, instead of setting aside the order dated 10.02.2021, he has deferred its implementation till 15.04.2021, which is unheard of.

9. Learned counsel argued that having found the order impugned dated 10.02.2021 to be illegal and contrary to facts and law, it was required of the Appellate Authority to either record his own finding and decide the matter or to have remanded the matter back to the Executive Engineer with a direction to decide the aplication dated 25.01.2021 in accordance with law.

10. Learned counsel further argued that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is clearly contrary to facts and law and the same deserved to be quashed and set aside.

11. Arguments were also advanced by learned counsel that the water-course/aad, as prayed by respondent No.4, cannot be sanctioned.

12. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the order dated 23.02.2021, passed by the Superintending Engineer has been implemented and in furtherance of the order dated 23.02.2021, water slips have been issued by the respondents and thus, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present writ petition and it has been rendered in fructuous.

13. Heard.

14. A perusal of the facts and record clearly shows that vide earlier dated 25.01.2012, the Executive Engineer himself had observed that having regard to the standing crop, neither the water turn can be changed nor can the water-course/aad. Surprisingly, after 12 days, when the incumbent in the Chair of respondent No.3 changed, he had reviewed his own order and has gone to the extent of setting aside earlier order dated 25.01.2021.

15. In the opinion of this Court, the Executive Eng