1990 PLP 798 (SCMR)

Chaudhry Muhammad Yaqoob Sindhoo, Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th August, 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 13‑1‑1986, whereby their civil revision against the judgment of the District Judge dated 11‑4‑1985 was dismissed. The facts in detail are given in the plaint. The petitioners/ plaintiffs who were the residents of Chak No.95/12‑L Chichawatni, District Sahiwal challenged the order dated 20‑8‑1973, passed by the Deputy Canal Officer, Khanewal, before the Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal, through a declaratory suit, to be declared as void and inoperative against their rights. It was averred in the plaint that the said order of the D.C.O. has deprived Mauls 'Bakhsh petitioner/plaintiff No.3 of his right of Nikkal of water and gave the same right to respondents/defendants Nos.1 to

38. The learned Senior Civil Judge on the pleadings of the parties framed contesting issues and after recording evidence thereto, decreed the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs, vide his order dated 20‑12‑1983. The respondents/defendants went in appeal against the said order before the District Judge, who vide his judgment dated 11‑4‑1985 accepted the appeal, set aside the order and decree passed by the trial Court and restored the order dated 20‑8‑1973 of the D.C.O. The petitioners went in Civil Revision before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan which was dismissed vide impugned judgment. Hence this petition before this Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the judgments of the Courts below. The learned counsel contended that Nikkal water to square No.54 should have been given after allowing water for filling the village ponds located in squares Nos.52 and

53. He also urged that notices were not served on all the villagers. The record. shows that the village Abadi is situated in half of square No.52 and the whole of square No.53. Both the ponds are located in the village abadi for which four hours and 15 minutes duration of water was allowed which was sufficient to fill these ponds and the order of the Deputy Canal Officer was correct that more water to these ponds would be a mis use of such water and therefore it was rightly given to square No.54. As far as the notices to the villagers are concerned, it is also on the record that an announcement on the loudspeaker of the village mosque about the date of hearing was made and it was also proclaimed by the beat of drum which in our opinion in this case is a sufficient notice to the villagers at large. We were not impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as the‑same arguments were put forth before the learned appellate Court, which the learned District Judge thoroughly dealt with and arrived at a correct conclusion, based on facts, which the learned High Court has rightly not interfered in its revisional jurisdiction. We do not think it is a fit case for grant of leave. The petition is accordingly, dismissed. H.B.T./A‑647/S Petition dismissed.