JUDGMENT Paramjeet Singh, J. Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 07.01.2011 (Annexure P/10) passed by respondent no.1 and order dated 29.06.2010 (Annexure P/8) passed by respondent No.2 under the provisions of Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and other right holders of outlet No. 89150L Rajbaha Jaitu made a request to respondent no.2 that by splitting this outlet, watercourse be provided at outlet No. 3190R on Kotli minor. Ziledar, Jaitu and Sub Divisional Officer, Dhaipai made a site inspection, conducted enquiry and recommended the splitting of outlet No. 89150. The Divisional Canal Officer – respondent no.2 after considering the report and comparative command statement submitted by the Junior Engineer, sanctioned the new outlet No. 3190R Kotli minor for 354/345 acre vide order dated 20.03.2003 (Annexure P/1). Thereafter, Balwinder Singh and others, cosharers and private respondent nos. 3 to 28 filed an appeal against order (Annexure P/1) before the Superintending Canal Officer (respondent no.1), which has been dismissed vide order dated 14.06.2005 (Annexure P/2). It is averred that the said order is alleged to have attained finality. The area of the petitioner and his family members was being irrigated from outlet No. 3190R Kotli minor, but due to political vendetta of the then Finance Minister, Punjab, respondent nos. 3 to 28 along with their family members moved an application for shifting the head of outlet No. 3190R Kotli Minor to 1625 ft. upstream in order to cause loss of smooth irrigation to the land of the petitioner. It is pleaded that Divisional Canal Officer in hasty manner ordered the shifting of outlet No. 3190R minor and sanctioned a new outlet No. RD 1606R minor and added 63.57/56.9 acres' area of outlet No. 89150/L Rajbaha Jaitu on his own without providing opportunity of hearing to the right holders. Application was moved by the petitioner and other right holders not to review the previous orders and also opposed the shifting of outlet no. 3190R minor. It was specifically brought to the notice of the Divisional Canal Officer that no scheme had been prepared or published under Section 30A or under Section 30B (1) of the Act. All this was done under a political pressure. 3190R minor. It was specifically brought to the notice of the Divisional Canal Officer that no scheme had been prepared or published under Section 30A or under Section 30B (1) of the Act. All this was done under a political pressure. Otherwise also, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Against the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, an appeal was filed which has also been dismissed by the Superintending Canal Officer vide order dated 18.07.2007 (Annexure P/6). There were various other allegations by other persons that the land is not being irrigated from the shifted point of Outlet No. 3190 and this point has been shifted to far off place and distance has been increased to 1625 feet backward and siphon system is required to be added for irrigation. C.W.P. No. 12911 of 2007 was filed in this Court by Jaswinder Singh petitioner challenging orders dated 29.05.2007 and 18.07.2007 passed by Divisional Canal Officer and Superintending Canal Officer, respectively, for shifting of the head of outlet No. 3190R and sanctioning new outlet at Burji No. 1606R Kotli minor (1625 ft. upstream). The said writ petition was allowed and the orders impugned therein were set aside vide order dated 01.12.2009 (Annexure P/7) and direction was issued to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. The operative part of the order (Annexure P/7) reads as under: “11. For the foregoing reasons the orders dated 29.05.2007 (Annexure P5) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot Canal Division, Faridkot (respondent no.2) and 18.07.2007 (Annexure P6) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana (Respondent No.1) are quashed and the Divisional Canal Officer, Faridkot (Respondent no.2) shall reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law.” That respondent no.2, on an application moved by the respondents and without waiting for the copy of order of this Court (Annexure P/7) proceeded with the matter in haste and passed the impugned order approving the splitting of outlet No. 89150L of Jaitu Rajbaha. Hence, this writ petition. Upon notice, respondents appeared and filed their separate written statements. Respondent nos.1 and 2 in their written statement stated that application was moved by the respondents. After considering the reports and comparative command statement submitted by the Junior Engineer, new outlet No. 3190R Kotli Minor for 354/345 acres of land was sanctioned. Hence, this writ petition. Upon notice, respondents appeared and filed their separate written statements. Respondent nos.1 and 2 in their written statement stated that application was moved by the respondents. After considering the reports and comparative command statement submitted by the Junior Engineer, new outlet No. 3190R Kotli Minor for 354/345 acres of land was sanctioned. On receipt of an application for transfer of the area from outlet No. 3190R to RD 1606R Kotli minor, spot inspection was carried out. The water level at RD 1606R Kotli minor was considered and it was found that it would be for better irrigation. It was also submitted that warabandi has already been fixed and sanctioned under Section 68 of the Act regarding these outlets. Respondent nos. 3 to 28 in their written statement took the plea that the petitioner is only person aggrieved against the impugned orders, others are not forthcoming for filing the appeal. The authorities have shifted the outlet from RD1606/R to RD3190/L of Kotli Minor. It has been done in the interest of better irrigation as RD3190/L is at 4 inch lower level than that of RD1606. Moreover, RD No. 3190/R is at upstream level and the existing watercourses are supplying proper canal irrigation from this point. Moreover 400 acres of land of about more than 50 shareholders is getting proper irrigation from this source. The orders impugned are legal and valid. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is a clear cut violation of Section 30A of the Act. No scheme was published nor the draft site plan was prepared. Earlier arrangement had been going on for many years and those orders have become final. While directing the authority to reconsider the case, learned Single Judge of this Court in judgment dated 01.12.2009 passed in CWP No. 12911 of 2007 (Annexure P/7) has specifically observed that the orders were not in accordance with law and were non speaking and even the scheme contemplated under section 30A of the Act was not shown to have been framed as per the provisions of law. In para no.10 of the judgment, it was specifically mentioned that earlier orders dated 20.03.2003 (Annexure P/1) and 14.06.2005 (Annexure P/2) were improperly reconsidered without framing proper scheme under the provisions of Section 30A. In para no.10 of the judgment, it was specifically mentioned that earlier orders dated 20.03.2003 (Annexure P/1) and 14.06.2005 (Annexure P/2) were improperly reconsidered without framing proper scheme under the provisions of Section 30A. Even the order has been passed without waiting for the copy of the order dated 01.12.2009 passed by learned Single Judge, meaning thereby, that the canal authorities have no regard for the High Court's orders. It is beyond imagination that authorities can proceed with the matter without having a look at the order of the High Court vide which direction for reconsideration has been issued and direction is also to the effect that proper scheme should be framed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned orders are acceptable to every one except the petitioner who has approached this Court. Warabandi has been fixed over the changed outlets. The outlets have been changed for the better irrigation. Orders passed by the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer are legal and valid and are well reasoned orders. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. Before I deal with the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce Sections 30A and 30 B of the Act which reads as under: 30A.PreparationofDraftScheme.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in this Act and subject to the rules prescribed by the State Government in this behalf the Divisional Canal Officer may on his own motion or on the application of a shareholder prepare a draft scheme to provide for all or any of the matters namely : (a) the construction, alternation , extension and alignment of any watercourse or realignment of any existing watercourse : (b) re-allotment of areas served by one watercourse to another : (c) the lining of any watercourse ; (cc) the occupation of land for the deposit of soil from watercourse clearances; (d) any other mater which is necessary for the proper maintenance and distribution of supply of water from a watercourse. (2) Every scheme prepared under subsection (1) shall amongst other matters, set out the estimated cost thereof, the alignment of the proposed watercourse or realignment of the existing watercourse, as the case may be, the site of the outlet, the particulars of the shareholders to be benefited and other persons who may be affected thereby, and a sketch plan of the area proposed to be covered by the scheme. 30B.Publicationofascheme. – (1) Every scheme shall, as soon as may be after its preparation, be published in such form and manner as may be prescribed by rules made in this behalf inviting objections and suggestions with respect thereof within twenty one days of the publication. (2) The Divisional Canal Officer may after considering the objections and suggestions, if any, approve, modify or reject scheme. (3) The Superintending Canal Officer may suo motu within a period of thirty days from the date of publication under Section 30C, or on an application, by a person aggrieved by the approval, modification or rejection of the scheme, made within a like period, call for the record of the scheme from the Divisional Canal Officer and may, after examining the same, confirm the action taken by the Divisional Canal Officer or may, after affording to the person affected an opportunity of being heard, approve or modify the scheme in such form as he may deem fit or may reject the same.” The Ziledar has come along with the record of the case. The file produced before me does not have any set of estimated cost, sketch plan of the area proposed to be covered by the scheme, the particulars of the shareholders to be benefitted and the other persons who may be affected thereby. Besides this, there was nothing on record to prove that the scheme has been properly published in accordance with the Act nor the objections/suggestions have been invited within the stipulated period of 21 days. As per the provisions of the Act, Divisional Canal Officer after considering the objections and suggestions may approve and modify or reject the scheme. Apparently, there appears to be a clear violation of Sections 30A and 30B of the Act. On this short ground, the impugned orders are not sustainable. In view of above, instant writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Apparently, there appears to be a clear violation of Sections 30A and 30B of the Act. On this short ground, the impugned orders are not sustainable. In view of above, instant writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the authorities to reconsider the matter after due publication of the scheme and strict compliance of Sections 30A and 30B of the Act. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Divisional Canal Officer on 25.08.2014. Needful shall be down within a period of four months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Before parting with the judgment, it would be appropriate to refer the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, which reads as under: “The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court remanded the case with direction to pass a speaking order afresh to the Divisional Canal Officer Faridkot, but in this regard, the applicant has not produced any written order of Hon'ble High Court. In regard to this case, the shareholders appeared and submitted that their case was remanded by Hon'ble High Court and the same be decided. On the requests of applicants, notice of the case was issued for 22.6.10.....” The above order clearly indicates that the influence of the applicant, now respondent No.4, was such that canal authorities proceeded in the matter on their requests without waiting for the order of this Court dated 01.12.2009. It is beyond imagination that any authority can in such a manner proceed to pass fresh order even without having a look at the orders of the High Court. For that reason, it appears that the authorities had not complied with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 01.12.2009. Resultantly, there is another round of litigation. Besides this, the Divisional Canal Officer discharges functions under the Canal Act as a quasijudicial authority. The canal authorities are required to make specific reference to the comparative command statement, the level from the head of the outlet and the distance, how change/shifting will increase or decrease irrigation. The order must mention about the upstream and down stream situation of the fields which are to be shifted to different outlets. The canal authorities are required to make specific reference to the comparative command statement, the level from the head of the outlet and the distance, how change/shifting will increase or decrease irrigation. The order must mention about the upstream and down stream situation of the fields which are to be shifted to different outlets. This Court expresses its displeasure on the manner in which the impugned orders have been passed in undue haste, without realizing that the consequences in the water disputes many a times lead to serious dispute including murder etc.