JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral):- Petitioners seek a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders, Annexures P1 to P3 whereby wari of the parties was fixed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that order passed by Superintending Canal Officer is non-speaking in nature. The authority has not dealt with contentions raised before it. She, therefore, prays that matter be remitted to same authority for decision afresh. 3. Prayer is not opposed by learned State counsel. 4. Heard. 5. An application was moved by Balbir Singh before Deputy Collector, Bathinda under section 68(3) of the Canal and Drainage Act 8 of 1873. Said application was allowed vide order, annexure P1. Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the same before the appellate and revisional authorities. The Superintending Canal Officer while dealing with revision petition merely held that Divisional Canal Officer had visited the spot and come to the conclusion that wari had been correctly fixed. A perusal of the order shows that same is cryptic and non-speaking. 6. Under the circumstances, matter needs to be remitted to the same authority for decision afresh after hearing the parties. 7. Ordered accordingly. 8. Revision petition is allowed in these terms. ---------0.B.S.0------------