1995 PLP 891 (SCMR)

WALI MUHAMMAD, KHAN, J: ‑‑Bashir Ahmed, petitioner herein, calls in question the judgment dated 16‑11‑1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Courts whereby R.SA. No. 872/66, filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 15‑11‑1966 of the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad reversing the decree of the trial Court dated 18‑6‑1966, was dismissed. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the parties irrigate their a lands from outlet No. 8200/R situated in Chak No. 262/RB. Muhammad Yousaf plaintiff/appellant No. 2 in the High Court, approached the Canal Authorities for preparation of new Warabandi in view of the consolidation having taken place in the estate, which was allowed but the result was deprivation of the petitioner and others from "Nikal". Aggrieved therefrom, they filed a suit challenging the order of the Divisional Canal Officer whereby Nikal was given to the opposite side. 1`t was averred in the plaint that their lands were situated at the tail end and therefore they were entitled to the allotment of the Nikal in the fresh Warabandi as well, as the situation of the lands owned by the respective parties had not undergone any change. The suit was contested and the learned trial Court;, on the appraisal of the evidence produced before it, accepted the contention of the plaintiffs/ petitioner and decreed their suit. However, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court holding that the order of the Divisional Canal Officer was based on facts and rules on the subject and was not ultra vines. The learned High Court having concurred with it through the impugned order, the necessity to file the R.SA. arose. We have heard Ch. Khalilur Rehman, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case. The preparation of Warabandi and distribution of canal water and the fixation of turn of water of each irrigator is the exclusive responsibility of the Canal Authorities who are supposed to be well‑versed in the technical subject and perform their duties m accordance with the situation prevailing at the spot. At the time of preparation of new Warabandi or amendment in the existing Warabandi which have long been acted upon, the earlier Warabandis are also taken into consideration. Admittedly, the lands of the parties are situated at the tail end as is apparent from the Serial No. of the square 74 belonging to the petitioner and 73 belonging to the respondents. No one had any vested right to the use of Nikal and normally it is left with the irrigator who has the last turn of water according to the weekly distribution of the water. In the last Warabandi it was the petitioner who were the last irrigators, and therefore, they had been using the same but in the present Warabandi probably the respondents have been allotted the last turn and technically Nikal fell to their lot. The learned Additional District Judge and the High Court have on the appraisal of evidence and the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer, have concurrently held the Warabandi valid, legal and factual and we have not been convinced to find any fault in it. Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. A.A./B‑247/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.