1994 PLP 1631 (SCMR)

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner owned land in Squares Nos.16 and 17 of Chak No. 416/JB of Tehsil Toba Tek Singh and he drew water from two outlets at different hours. In order to consolidate his turn of water and to enable him to draw water from the same outlet the Canal Authorities re‑located the outlet from which Deena, predecessor‑in‑interest of respondent No. 5, also received water. The re‑location adversely affected Deena who had a small holding, for, now he had to draw water from an outlet which. was five Killas away from his land. He filed a civil suit to challenge the legality of the orders of the canal authorities. His suit was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal it was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge. The petitioner's second appeal before the High Court failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

2. While dismissing the second appeal of the petitioner the High Court observed: "It has been seen that by their joint written statement, the defendants had to some extent conceded the justice of the plaintiff's claim. I have read the order of the Divisional Canal Officer dated 6‑1‑1966 (Exh. P.1). Unfortunately, the application under section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act of Hakim Ali was not brought on the record and it is not known what precisely his grievance before the Divisional Canal Officer was and why he thought that a modification of the existing Warabandi was necessary. In his evidence, Hakim Ali said that he was owner of land in Squares Nos. 16 and 17; that separate irrigation water had been sanctioned for each square and that by his application under section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act, he had requested the consolidation of his Warabandi. The order of the Divisional Canal Officer, however, does not show and gives no reason why the turn of Deena, plaintiff, was changed. It has been seen that before the impugned order, Hakim Ali, defendant, availed of his turn of water first and it was then that the plaintiff, Deena, had his turn of water. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was owner of a small holding of 4‑1/2 acres only and if the truth be that he had to bring water from a distance of five Killas, then the learned District Judge was right in thinking that he was adversely affected by the impugned order. It was pointed out that the plaintiff had been compensated for he had been given twenty‑five minutes more than before, but that, in itself, did not justify the modification ordered by the D.C.O " After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we do not think that any case for interference with the well‑reasoned judgment of the High Court has been made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. AA./H‑186/S Leave refused.