2007 PLP 1074 (YLR)

SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 1-10-2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif whereby appeal brought by respondent No.4 against the judgment decree dated 14-9-2004 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Pakpattan Sharif was accepted.

2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that petitioners filed suit for declaration etc. against the respondents and stated, that they are owners of agricultural land bearing Khewat Nos.30, 32, 34 and 23, Khatuni Nos.135 and 121, situated in Chak No.17/K.B., Tehsil Arifwala. They further stated that Khan Muhammad defendant/respondent No.4 is also owner of land in same chak bearing Khewat Nos.30/30, 33/35, 31 min, 23 min, 52 and 74 and that their land is being irrigated through Mogha No.23430/R. Khan Muhammad, moved an application before S.D.C.O./Respondent No.3 for sanction of water course (Khal) through the land of plaintiffs/petitioners bearing Khasra No.54/14, 15 and alleged that his "Nakka" was sanctioned at 54/6 and 15 but plaintiffs have dismantled the same. His application was dismissed by S.D.C.O. vide order dated 25-1-1997 and 'Nakka' which had been sanctioned at 54/15, 16 was also cancelled and it was sanctioned 15 54/5 and 6 Khan Muhammad filed appeal thereagainst was accepted vide order dated 26-3-1997 passed by D.C.O./respondent No.2 and D.C.O. directed the restoration of "Khal". The petitioners filed suit against the respondents and stated that order passed by D.C O. dated 26-3-1997 is illegal, without jurisdiction and based on mala fide. Khan Muhammad, respondent mentioned in written statements that plaintiffs have dismantled "Khal" which was in existence since 1992 and the same was in Khasra No.54/14, 15, therefore, his crops have been damaged. He further stated that D.C.O. had restored the "Nakka" 54/6 and 15 already sanctioned through the previous "warabandi" and regularized his Khal under section

68. Learned trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence and decreed the suit brought by plaintiffs vide judgment dated 14-9-2000. Khan Muhammad, respondent filed appeal thereagainst which was accepted vide judgment dated 1-10-2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge. Hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

4. As mentioned above Khan Muhammad, respondent No.4 had filed application before S.D.C.O., respondent No.3 for restoration of his "Khal" as the same had been dismantled by the petitioners/plaintiffs. His application was dismissed vide order dated 25-1-1997. He (Khan Muhammad, respondent) filed appeal before D.C.O./respondent No.2 and the same was accepted. The order passed by. S.D.C.O. (Exh.P.2) shows that Muhammad Nawaz, petitioner stated before S.D.C.O. that there was watercourse in Khasra No.54/14, 15 but they have dismantled the same. The said order also shows that S.D.C.O. cancelled the Nakka at 54/6 and 15 and sanctioned at 54/5 and

6. The order dated 25-1-1997 indicates that earlier there was "Nakka" at 54/6 and

15. Khan Muhammad respondent while appearing as D.W.1 stated that disputed watercourse is in Khasra No.54/14 and 15 and the same was in existence for the last 50/60 years. He further stated that they have given land bearing Khasra Nos.55/6-25 in lieu of said "Khal". The defendant deposed that plaintiffs have dismantled the "Khal". His statement is convincing and confidence-inspiring. Even otherwise admittedly disputed watercourse and "Nakka" (54/14-15) were in existence and "warabandi" had also been sanctioned in favour of respondent/defendant. However, petitioners dismantled the same. So D.C.O. has rightly accepted the appeal brought by respondent. The order dated 26-3-1997 passed by D.C.O. shows that he decided the appeal brought by respondent after site inspection. He sanctioned the "Khal" which was dismantled by the petitioners. So learned Additional District Judge has rightly accepted the appeal brought by respondent. The judgment dated 1-10-2001 shows that learned Additional District Judge has decided the appeal brought by respondent after appraisal of entire material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, therefore, there is no justification to warrant interference by this Court.

5. The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. H.B.T./A-30/L Revision dismissed.