JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure P/7) passed by respondent No.1 – Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as the “SCO”) whereby order dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No.2 – Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division, Abohar (hereinafter referred to as the “DCO”) restoring the demolished watercourse A-D-B, has been set aside under the provisions of Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 and the rules framed thereunder. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claimed to be owners of land measuring 12 kanals 7 marlas shown in yellow colour in the site plan (Annexure P/1). It is averred by the petitioners that a watercourse A-D-B was running along the Killa No. 60//13/2 and 18 and Killa No. 60//19. The said watercourse has been demolished by respondent No.3 – Resham Singh. The petitioners moved an application to the DCO for restoration of demolished watercourse A-D-B (Annexure P/2). The DCO vide order dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure P/6) ordered the restoration of the watercourse. Against the order of the DCO, respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the SCO. The SCO vide order dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure P/7) has set aside the order of the DCO. Hence, this writ petition. 3. After notice of motion, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as well as respondent No.3 filed their separate written statements denying the averments made in the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Perusal of site plan (Annexure P/1) indicates that the water is coming from the south towards north. In-between alleged demolished watercourse exists as a branch watercourse A-D-B and another branch watercourse D-E is visible in the site plan. Perusal of warabandi shown by the Ziledar, who is present in Court, reveals that the water is taken from Killa No. 61//18 and 24 by Resham Singh (respondent No.3) and is given at intersection of 60//13/2 and 17. Thereafter, alleged demolished watercourse starts. Perusal of warabandi shown by the Ziledar, who is present in Court, reveals that the water is taken from Killa No. 61//18 and 24 by Resham Singh (respondent No.3) and is given at intersection of 60//13/2 and 17. Thereafter, alleged demolished watercourse starts. An FIR regarding demolished watercourse has been registered as FIR No. 69 dated 20.06.2009 under Sections 379, 427 IPC and Section 70 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, at Police Station Malout Sadar, District Muktsar (Annexure R-3/8) at the instance of Pippal Singh son of Hardeep Singh (petitioner no.2). A perusal of order of the DCO makes it clear that at point ‘A’, there is pucca sanctioned nakka for irrigation of the land of the petitioners. It has also been recorded in the order of the DCO that the place from where the watercourse has been demolished has become lower in level and the area is soft and the other party had planted the plants of Narma (cotton) at the place of demolished watercourse by uprooting from other places. Due to the piling up rainy water at the place of demolished watercourse, the plants were in dry condition. The other party has demolished the watercourse presumably to consolidate the area comprised in Rect. No. 60//13/2 and 18. The watercourse B-C and D-E are in existence at the spot. The existence of pucca nakka proves the demolition of the watercourse. The SCO has set aside the order of the DCO without dealing with the finding recorded by the DCO. The SCO has not dealt with the findings of DCO with regard to the existence of nakka at point ‘A’ nor has taken note of the fact of the warabandi in existence nor SCO has discussed the other evidence available on the record, rather, has issued a direction that DCO should make other arrangement for irrigation of the land of the petitioners. 6. The order of the SCO is non-speaking and sketchy. The SCO being quasi-judicial authority is required to give reasons to set aside the order of the DCO and also deal with the contention which has been considered by the DCO in the present case. No documentary evidence i.e. warabandi, which is a material evidence from which it can very well be seen whether watercourse was in existence, where the points of the nakka giving and nakka taking have been fixed in the warabandi. No documentary evidence i.e. warabandi, which is a material evidence from which it can very well be seen whether watercourse was in existence, where the points of the nakka giving and nakka taking have been fixed in the warabandi. All these facts can make clear about the existence of the watercourse. This has not been considered by the SCO. The DCO has referred to warabandi in his order. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were irrigating their land and the warabandi for their fields is in existence then there must be nakka taking and nakka giving at certain points 7. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the SCO is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the SCO with a direction to pass a speaking order specifically dealing with the contention on the basis of which DCO has accepted the application of the petitioners and will also specifically refer to the warabandi of the relevant period with reference as to which point Resham Singh (respondent No.3) was taking nakka and at what point he was giving nakka. The SCO will also make reference to the warabandi to see as to whom respondent No.3 was giving water and at what point, and thereafter, the nakka giving and nakka taking in the case of other cosharers vis-a-vis the petitioners is also to be referred. The above said exercise will be completed within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the SCO on 02.04.2012. 9. Disposed of accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------