JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Petitioners are the agriculturists of Hanumangarh having their agricultural land in Chak No. 30 NDR/B which was purchased by them from one Shri Kamaldeep Singh S/o Gurmel Singh. 2. In the petition, it is inter-alia averred that although the aforesaid agriculture land is uncommand land but they are availing irrigation facilities since 1998. In support thereof, the affidavit showing consent of some of the agriculturists (Annex.P/3) is also placed on record. The said consent affidavit is also signed by the seventh respondent vis-a-vis irrigation facilities availed by the predecessor in title of the petitioners. It is transpired from the writ petition that some revenue proceedings were going on and the petitioners have also approached the officers of the Irrigation Department. When revenue proceedings were going on it is noticed by the Irrigation Department that benefit of temporary irrigation facilities to them for the aforesaid uncommand land are continuing since 17.10.1998. It so happened that the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Divison Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh issued a notice to the petitioners on 22.05.2015 with the stipulation that land in question is uncommand land and therefore, why their irrigation facilities may not be discontinued. 3. Being aggrieved by the said notice, petitioners approached the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle Suratgarh, District Hanumangarh. The appellate authority Superintending Engineer by a very vague and cryptic order rejected the appeal with following recitals:- ^^vihykaV vf/koDrk dks ewy vfHkys[kA 'kiFki= izLrqr djus gsrq le; fn;k x;k] ijUrq muds }kjk ewy 'kiFk&i= izLrqr ugha fd;s x;sA vihykaV~l dk jdck vudek.M Js.kh esa vkrk gS ,oa vudek.M jdck dks flapkbZ lqfo/kk fu;ekuqlkj iznku ugha dh tk ldrhA iwoZ esa ca/kh ckjh pd ds dk'rdkjksa dh lgefr vuqlkj HkkbZpkjk ckjh py jgh gS ckjkcanh vuqlkj ughaA^^ 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that learned Superintending Engineer has not examined the matter in right perspective and on the face of it the order is laconic and non-speaking order which cannot be sustained. 6. Per contra, Mr.Sandhu learned counsel submits that as a matter of fact the appeal itself was premature as it was against a show cause notice only, and as such, was not maintainable. 7. 6. Per contra, Mr.Sandhu learned counsel submits that as a matter of fact the appeal itself was premature as it was against a show cause notice only, and as such, was not maintainable. 7. Be that as it may the fact remains that the Superintending Engineer while exercising powers under Rajasthan Irrigation & Drainage Act 1954 and the rules made thereunder is to act as a quasi judicial authority and therefore, it is expected of it to adjudicate the matter by furnishing reasons. 8. On a bare perusal of the impugned order, it can very well be said that the said order is bereft of any reasons and it is simply contains the conclusion. Taking into account these circumstances, I feel persuaded to interfere with the said order and the said order cannot be sustained. 9. In this view of the matter, the impugned order date 04.08.2015 (Annex.P/12) is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Superintending Engineer for deciding the appeal of the petitioners afresh. 10. It is made clear that the Superintending Engineer shall decide the appeal of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law and shall also examine the issue relating to maintainability of the appeal. 11. Before parting, it may be observed that if the irrigation facilities availed by the petitioners have not been curtailed then the same may not be curtailed until the decision of the appeal afresh. Writ petition allowed.