2000 PLP 1095 (SCMR)

CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.

By this joint order we intend. to dispose of the above Civil Petitions which have arisen out of short orders made by learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in petitioners' Writ Petition No.16267 of 1996 and 7101 of 1995 on 17-41998 in line with the reason recorded in Writ Petition No.8458 of 1995 when the learned counsel for the writ petitioners in the latter cause stated that his clients "along with other owners who are presently getting water supply from the tube-well in question and prepared to purchase the same in its present condition at a negotiable price. The petitioners may approach respondent No .1 (Secretary Irrigation Government of Punjab, Lahore) with an application in writing making a prayer for sale of the tube well in question at a negotiable price In case such an application is moved, the Secretary Irrigation may sell the tube well on negotiated price in the joint names of the land owners who are presently getting water supply from the tubewell. " (Underlining is for emphasis).

2. We have heard Mr. Ch. Muhammad Abdus Saleem, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of these petitions, at some length. The sum total of his submissions is that none of the petitioners is possessed of the requisite finances to avail of the proposed sale of the tube well by the official respondents. According to him, the respondent authorities have no intention of discontinuing the tubewells run under Scarp 1 and that the offer made by someone in another similar writ petition for the purchase of tube-well cannot be made a precedent for all the write petitioners.

3. We are afraid nothing will turn on somebody other than the present petitioners making the offer to purchase the tubewell in question before the learned Judge in Chambers on 17-4-1998. We find that a number of writ f petitions, including Writ Petition No.8458 of 1995, were taken up in the High Court on 17-4-1998. It was in the latter mentioned cause that the then learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the respondent-authorities stated that the tubewell installed at the spot is still in working position and that as the Scarp-project is being abandoned by the Government, it ill be shut down at any moment. It was in para.2 of the order that a reference was made ' to the learned counsel for the petitioners on Writ Petition No.8458 of 1995 submitting that his clients were prepared to purchase the tubewell in its present condition at a negotiable price and that the learned Judge in Chambers disposed of the petition with the afore-quoted directions. The facility extended to persons similarly placed as the petitioners in the presence of their respective counsel was accepted by all concerned, without any demur. Now it is too late in the day to take a somersault and that too to change the entire complexion of the concession having been made in all the connected causes by making a direct reference to the proceedings in Writ Petition No.8458 of 1995.

4. As regards the plea that no effort whatsoever has been made by .the respondent-authorities to undo the Punjab Soil Proclamation Act (No.XXI of) 1952), we suffice by observing that the statement made by the learned Law Officer as per the first paragraph of the judgment/order in Writ Petition No.8458 of 1995, did talk about the Government having abandoned the Scarp-project. It is not the case of the petitioners that statement is deficient in any material particulars whatsoever. Moreover, the continuation of the facility of getting water from the tubewell in question can come about only if the proposed arrangements are finalised strictly in accordance with the observations made by the learned Judge in Chambers. No other point was urged.

6. Resultantly, these petitions are dismissed and leave refused. M.B.A./M-36/S Petitions dismissed.