JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioner is owner in possession of half share of land comprising Rectangle No. 50 Khasra Nos. 16 and 17 both measuring (8-0) kanal. He is co-onwer with brother Lakhbir Singh. Bhagwan Singh son of Suba Singh is owner in possession of the remaining half share. Respondent No. 3 (Bakshish Singh) owns and possesses land measuring 25 kanals 9 marlas situated in village Pakharpura, Tehsil and District Amritsar. Respondent No. 4 moved application before respondent No. 2 for restoration of water course- CFG as shown in site plan. After providing opportunity to the parties concerned, respondent No. 2 passed exparte order and did not hear respondent No. 4 properly. Respondent No. 2 passed an order restoring the water course CFG through land of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal against the same, which was accepted by respondent No. 1. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 1 has not applied his mind to the material placed on record and water course as shown in the site plan was restored from the land of the petitioner without serving any notice to him, despite the fact that there is no allegation of demolition made against the petitioner and respondent No. 4. 2. During the course of hearing, counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 had prayed for resolving the issue amicably and so sought time to summon the parties so that if possible the dispute could be amicably settled. The parties were, accordingly, directed to remain present. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 have come present. However, respondent No. 3 is not present. Counsel for the said respondent submits that he had made an attempt to get in touch with respondent No. 3 but despite communication he has not come present. It was at the request of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that the parties were summoned but now he himself has chosen to remain absent. Except for wasting the time of the court, no purpose is achieved by this request made on behalf of respondent No. 3. 3. The case has been heard on merits. If respondent No. 1 was intending to provide the water course through the land owned by the petitioner, it was incumbent upon him to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. The case has been heard on merits. If respondent No. 1 was intending to provide the water course through the land owned by the petitioner, it was incumbent upon him to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Otherwise also plea is that there is no allegation of demolition of this water course by the petitioner. The water course earlier was restored through the land of respondent No. 3, on whose appeal it is changed in this manner to prejudice the petitioner. Such an order could only have been passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected petitioner to ensure adherence to principle of natural justice. The impugned order, Annexures P-5 and P-6 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer (SCO), accordingly, cannot be sustained and are set aside. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the SCO on 30.10.2012, who shall now afford opportunity of hearing to all concerned and pass fresh order in accordance with law. 4. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.