1989 PLP 240 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1989. This revision arises out of a suit filed by petitioners which is pending before Ch. Muhammad Younas, Civil Judge, 1st Class, Faisalabad. This suit was filed on 7th of March, 1988 by the petitioners. The facts forming background of the dispute are that the petitioners are owners of land situate in Chak No. 288/G.B. Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh which is being irrigated by canal water through outlet No. RD‑37400/TL Rajana distributory. On an application filed by respondent No. 3 the area purchased by him measuring about 51 acres and 4 Kanals was ordered by the Divisional Canal Officer to be included in the Canal Commander Area and irrigation from the aforesaid outlet was allowed to the respondents by means of the order dated 18th of October, 1987. The petitioners filed an appeal against this order which was however, dismissed by the Superintending Canal Officer on 16th of January, 1988. These two orders were challenged by the petitioners by filing a suit for declaration inter alia on the ground that the petitioners were not served with any notice by the Divisional Canal Officer before he passed the impugned order. On the other hand these allegations were refuted by the respondents who pleaded that the petitioners could not, under the law,. be said to be aggrieved persons as their rights were not affected by the order of the Canal Authorities who had granted the right of irrigation to the respondent by increasing the size of the outlet and the water supply therefrom.

2. Alongwith the suit, the petitioners filed an application for temporary injunction which was rejected by the trial Court on 2‑10‑1988. The appeal filed by the petitioners against this order was also dismissed by an Additional District Judge at Faisalabad on 21st of December, 1988. Hence this civil revision.

3. I have heard Raja Muhammad Sabir and also Hafiz Muhammad Yousaf Advocates as well as the Sub‑Divisional Canal Officer (Mr. Abdul Rauf) who is present on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 with the record, to whom the pre admission notices had been issued. 1n the interest of expeditious disposal, the civil revision has been heard and is being disposed of today.

4. The dispute in the present case as already observed is about the supply of water for irrigating purposes to the petitioners According to the case of the respondents the volume of the water being supplied to the petitioners, will not be decreased as a result of the impugned order. Even today the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 as also the Sub‑Divisional Office has stated before this Court that whatever was the volume of water the petitioners were getting before the impugned order was passed, they shall continue to receive and it will not be diminished or decreased till the decision of the suit. At the request of learned counsel for respondent No. 3 it is however clarified that the respondents shall be bound to maintain the volume of water being received by the petitioners although the timing may be changed. As a result of the above and with the consent of the parties, the orders of the two Courts below are set aside and it is directed that the petitioners shall continue to receive the same amount/volume of water which they are presently receiving. Subject to this, however, the respondents may implement the order of D.C.O. Since the suit relates to the water for irrigating purposes, it is in the interest of justice that it be disposed of expeditiously. It is, therefore, directed that the trial Court shall dispose of the suit within a period of two months from today. The compliance of the order shall be reported by the learned Civil Judge to this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./L‑51/L Order accordingly.