' The respondent was allowed additional water supply for the purposes of a garden, but the petitioners have made a grievance out of it for the reason that they being the shareholder of the watercourse have not been heard before their proportionate share was reduced for the benefit of the respondent No. 1.
2. The record has been produced in Court by the officials of the department. On an application by respondent No. 1 an enquiry was made by the Divisional Canal Officer who recommended the case to the Superintending Engineer. The Superintending Engineer in response to the recommendations of the Executive Engineer sanctioned the additional water supply to 12.34 acres of garden belonging to Nazir Ahmad respondent. The Superintending Engineer issued this letter on 26th April, 1977. In pursuance of this letter the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer amended the Warabandi on 5th May, 1978.
3.
3. The record reveals that the petitioners were not associated with the enquiry conducted by the Executive Engineer or were given a chance to present their case to the Superintending Engineer before he sanctioned the additional wate: supply on 26th April, 1977. The parties were no doubt heard by the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer who formally amended the Warabandi, but this is of no consequence as the orders of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer were passed only in pursuance of the orders of the Superintending Engineer. The share of the water supply of the petitioners cannot be reduced without giving them a chance to be heard. The order of the Superintending Engineer and the subsequent orders of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer are volatile of the principles of natural justice. They are, therefore, set aside as being of no legal effect. The canal authorities will of course be free to have fresh proceedings with regard to the application of respondent No. 1 for sanction of additional supplies of canal water. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.