JUDGMENT G.S. Sandhawalia, J. 1. The petitioners have laid challenge to the orders dated 07.04.1992 (Annexure P3), passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa (for short, the 'DCO') respondent No.2, who, while complying with the earlier order dated 05.06.1991 (Annexure P2) of the Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala (for short the 'SCO) directed that 106 kanals 14 marlas of land, detail of which is given in his order, was taken away from outlet No.5033/L and added to outlet No.R.D.10405/L, Rajbaha Jodhpur under Section 30-B(2) of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 (for short, the 'Act'). The order dated 05.06.1991 (Annexure P2) of the SCO is also subject matter of challenge. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that their land holdings are irrigated by the Rajbaha, Jodhpur and they are shareholders of outlet No.R.D.10405/L whereas respondents No.3 to 5 are residents and landowners of Village Jodhpur Pakhar and their lands are irrigated from outlet No.R.D.5033/L. The said respondents had moved an application that some of their areas be transferred from the chak of outlet No.R.D.5033/L to that of outlet No.R.D.10405/L to make irrigation of their field more convenient. Respondent No.2-DCO prepared and published a scheme under 30-A of the Act, inviting objections and suggestions. The affected parties were heard and spot inspection was done. After taking into consideration all these factors, a six year chart regarding the manner and position of irrigation of these two outlets was also prepared and the DCO found that the existing system of irrigation was the most suitable and proper and rejected the application of the respondents vide order dated 12.09.1989 (Annexure P1). An appeal was filed before the SCO who remanded the case for reconsideration vide order dated 05.06.1991 (Annexure P2) with a direction that if some of the area had been transferred from R.D.10405/L to some other outlet, then that much area may be added to that outlet. An appeal was filed before the SCO who remanded the case for reconsideration vide order dated 05.06.1991 (Annexure P2) with a direction that if some of the area had been transferred from R.D.10405/L to some other outlet, then that much area may be added to that outlet. Instead of complying with the order of respondent No.1, the DCO passed the impugned order, transferring 106 kanals 14 marlas of land from outlet No.R.D.5033/L to R.D.10405/L. Accordingly, the said order was challenged on the ground that the remand order of respondent No.1 was not complied with and it was not verified whether some area had previously been taken away and then only some area could be transferred to outlet No.R.D.10405/L. It was further alleged that the scheme had been rejected earlier on 12.09.1989 vide Annexure P1 and therefore, order dated 05.06.1991 could not have been passed by respondent No.1. 3. In the written statement, filed by respondents No.1 & 2, it was pleaded that about 24 acres of land of respondents No.3 and 5 were being irrigated from R.D.10405/L and they were also shareholders of that outlet and order of remand was justified and the impugned order was passed in pursuance of the said remand order and in the interest of better irrigation. It was further averred that the petitioners have never challenged the order of respondent No.1 dated 05.06.1991 and have submitted to the remand proceedings and now, could not lay challenge to it. That an appeal could have been filed against the order of the DCO before respondent No.1 but the same had not been done by the petitioners. 4. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.3 & 4, the orders under challenge were justified on the ground that both the sides were heard and after spot inspection and verifying the fact, the order dated 07.04.1992 was passed, in consonance with the principles of natural justice. It is further mentioned that the petitioners were shareholders of outlet No.R.D.10405/L and were getting water for 283 acres against 274 acres and on transfer of 13 acres area of the private respondents, there would be an increase in the CCA of the outlet of only 4 acres in CCA of this outlet which is quite nominal. It is also averred that an appeal lay against the order of the DCO under Section 30-B(3) of the Act, which was not preferred. 5. It is also averred that an appeal lay against the order of the DCO under Section 30-B(3) of the Act, which was not preferred. 5. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that there was a specific order by respondent No.1 that if some area had been transferred from R.D.10405/L to some other outlet, then only that much area should be added to the outlet. It was averred that no such finding had been recorded. It is further submitted that in the absence of any scheme prepared under Section 30-B of the Act, the order could not have been passed once the scheme itself had been rejected on 12.09.1989 and that an appeal before respondent No.1 was not an effective remedy since he himself passed the remand order on 05.06.1991. 6. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that an appeal lay under Section 30-B(3) of the Act before respondent No.1 and that the area had been taken away from R.D.10405/L. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that though an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners before respondent No.1 but since the writ petition was admitted for regular hearing in 1992 and status quo had been ordered with regard to the area and turn of water, it would not be appropriate, now, to relegate the petitioners to the remedy of appeal before respondent No.1 under Section 30-B(3) of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Scheduled Caste Cooperative Society Vs. State of Punjab & another 2005 (1) PLR 665 has held that in admitted matters, relegating the parties to the alternative remedy would not be appropriate after a long period. Similarly, the Apex Court in Krishan Lal Vs. Food Corporation of India & others (2012) 4 SCC 786 held that alternative remedy is not a ground which can be pressed into at a belated stage. The relevant observations read as under : “11. It is true that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties. It is equally true that, keeping in view the nature of the controversy, any claim for refund of the amount deposited by the appellant could be and ought to have been raised before the arbitrator under the said arbitration. It is true that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties. It is equally true that, keeping in view the nature of the controversy, any claim for refund of the amount deposited by the appellant could be and ought to have been raised before the arbitrator under the said arbitration. The fact, however, remains that the High Court had entertained the writ petition as early as in the year 2002 and the present appeals have been pending in this Court for the past ten years or so. Relegating the parties to arbitration will not be feasible at this stage especially when the proceedings before the arbitrator may also drag on for another decade. Availability of an alternative remedy for adjudication of the disputes is, therefore, not a ground that can be pressed into service at this belated stage and is accordingly rejected.” 8. On merits, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 07.04.1992 is a non-speaking and not in compliance with the remand order dated 05.06.1991. Respondent No.1, while deciding the issue, had observed that the records were not available and remanded the matter to the DCO to record a finding that if some area had been actually transferred from R.D.10405/L to some other outlet, then that area may be added to the said outlet and that no other shareholders should suffer and that the water supply should not reduce. Relevant observation reads as under : “Taking into considerations all the facts it is found that the appellants want the transfer of their area on account of their personal difficulty and if their request is acceded to they will manage their irrigation in a better way. They have also stated that some area of outlet No.10405/L has already been transferred to some other outlet, records of which, however, have not been attached with this file. In view of the above position, the case is remanded to the Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa, with the directions that if some area has actually been transferred from 10405/L to some other outlet, then that much area may be now added to this outlet and it should be ensured that by doing so, no other shareholder should suffer and their water supply should not be reduced. This order is passed under section 30-B(3) of the Northern Indian Canal & Drainage Act (Act No.8 of 1873).” 9. In compliance of the said order, the DCO passed the following order : “The 3 applicants and 12 persons from the opposite side are present. Statement of the parties have been carefully gone into and the spot was also inspected on 5.3.1992. According to the A.F.sanctioned by the S.E./I.B.Circle, Patiala vide his Memo. No.161 dated 8.1.1992, the area of these two villages served by this outlet is as follows: Village Burj Sema=200/185 acres G.A./C.C.A. and village Jodhpur=98/98 acres G.A./C.C.A. According to Warabandi, the turns of village Burj Sema and Village Jodhpur are 185 acres and 89 acres respectively. This shows that an area of 9 acres should be reduced from this outlet. In compliance with the decision of the Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala, dated 5.6.1991, the following changes are hereby ordered in the interest of improved irrigation : Fields Nos. 197//1/1(1-16), 1/2(6-4), 2(8-0), 3(8-0), 4/1(2-14), 8/2(4-8), 9(8-0), 10(8-0), 11(8-0), 12(5-4), 13/1(5-0), 18/2(3-9), 19 (8-16), 20(6-8), 22(8-0), 23/1(3-8), 219//2(8-0), 3/1(3-0), Total: 106 Kanals 14 Marlas G.A./C.C.A. - This area will be taken away from the chak of Outlet No.5033/L and added to outlet No.R.D.10405/L Rajbaha Jodhpur. This is being done under section 30-B(2) of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act (Act 8 of 1873). It is ordered that the revised A.F. should be prepared strictly in accordance with the directions of the Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala and in the interest of the share-holders. Announced in the presence of the parties at Jawahar-ke on 7.4.1992.” 10. A perusal of the said order would go on to show that no finding was recorded by the DCO as to whether how much area had been actually transferred from outlet R.D.10405/L and how much area was to be added to the said outlet. Without recording any finding, 106 kanals 14 marlas was taken away and added to the said outlet to R.D.10405/L and a further direction was that a revised A.F. chart should be prepared in accordance with the directions of respondent No.1. Without recording any finding, 106 kanals 14 marlas was taken away and added to the said outlet to R.D.10405/L and a further direction was that a revised A.F. chart should be prepared in accordance with the directions of respondent No.1. Thus, in accordance with the directions of respondent No.1 and the remand order, there was no compliance and a finding had to be recorded by respondent No.2 before any area could be shifted to outlet No.R.D.10405/L that an area had been transferred from outlet No.R.D.10405/L. Thus, the order dated 07.04.1992 (Annexure P3) cannot be said to be justified and is liable to be quashed. However, the submission of counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 05.06.1991 is also liable to be quashed is without any basis since the petitioners chose not to challenge it and let the same become final and accepted the remand and rather appeared before respondent No.2, thereafter and thus, now, cannot lay any grouse to the said order. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 07.04.1992 (Annexure P3) is quashed and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 who is directed to decide the matter afresh, keeping in view the directions issued by respondent No.1 on 05.06.1991. 12. Parties shall appear before respondent No.2-the Divisional Canal Officer, Mansa Division, I.B. Mansa on 15.01.2014.