JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 4th July, 1995, Annexure P-4, passed by Chief Canal Officer, Irrigation Department, Hissar. 2. Counsel for petitioners submits that Chief Canal Officer erred in reversing the well considered findings arrived at by canal authorities below. He failed to take into consideration the fact that all the co-sharers wanted that outlet should be shifted from RD2250-L to RD2900-L, Alakhpura Minor. Only one co-sharer, namely Ishwar, had objections. He, however, never challenged the order passed by Divisional Canal Officer. According to him, order passed by Chief Canal Officer will adversely affect the petitioner and other co-sharers. He, however, submits that during the pendency of appeal before Superintending Canal Officer, outlet was shifted to RD2900-L on 27th April, 1995. According to him, the arrangement had been working satisfactorily since then. 3. Learned State counsel submits that there is no infirmity with the order passed by Chief Canal Officer. 4. Private respondents remain unrepresented. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It appears petitioners and other shareholders made an application for shifting of outlet RD2500-L to RD2900-L for better irrigation of their land. Canal authorities, thereafter, invited objections. Divisional Canal Officer vide order dated 28th October, 1994 accepted the demand for shifting the outlet to RD2900-L Alakhpura minor. He also observed that it was unanimous demand of all shareholders. He found that level of outlet RD2900-L was higher and would be in the interest of better irrigation. This order was challenged by private respondents before Superintending Canal Officer. However, said authority after examining the relevant record came to same conclusion. It observed that outlet RD2900-L would give better command and most of the shareholders were in favour of same. On an appeal being filed before Chief Canal Officer, he reversed the findings of Superintending Canal Officer. 7. Grievance of the petitioners is that Chief Canal Officer has not considered all aspects of the matter while passing the order. Besides, outlet was shifted during the pendency of proceedings and arrangement had been working well. 8. I find merit in contention of counsel for petitioners. It is evident from the findings of Divisional Canal Officer and Superintending Canal Officer that most of the shareholders were satisfied by shifting of the outlet to RD2900-L Alakhpura Minor. Besides, outlet was shifted during the pendency of proceedings and arrangement had been working well. 8. I find merit in contention of counsel for petitioners. It is evident from the findings of Divisional Canal Officer and Superintending Canal Officer that most of the shareholders were satisfied by shifting of the outlet to RD2900-L Alakhpura Minor. They also found that the level of said outlet was higher, which would be in the interest of better irrigation. Chief Canal Officer has not given any convincing reason for reversing these findings. Stand of the petitioners that outlet was shifted on 27th April, 1995 remains uncontroverted. 9. Under the circumstances, I feel order, Annexure P-4 passed by Chief Canal Officer deserves to be set aside. 10. Ordered accordingly. 11. Petition is, thus, allowed and order passed by Superintending Canal Officer is upheld. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————