2007 PLP 2993 (YLR)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

On 2-2-1997, respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent No:3 and

4. In the plaint, it was stated that the private parties are co-owners in Square No.43 of Chak No.23/2-L, Renala Khurd, Distt. , Okara and the land is irrigated on outlet No.24176/L/2-L. "Warabandi" is in operation since 30140 years whereby the petitioner had been getting water at Sr. No.66. The plaintiffs had purchased the land through various mutations, mentioned in para. 1 of the. plaint. Their vendor had been getting "Nakal" since- last 30 years. The petitioner filed an application for amendment of "Warabandi" as also obtaining "Nakal" in the year 1989. His plea was that since his land is located at the end of the square, he should be given "Nakal". The application was dismissed by S.D.C.O, on 6-7-1990. Appeal was dismissed by D.C.O. on 18-11-1990. These orders were not challenged by filing a suit. The petitioner filed fresh application for the same relief which dismissed by the S. D.C.O. on 15-12-1996. However, the D.C.O. allowed his appeal on 23-1-1997 and gave him "Nakal". Said order was stated to be illegal and void as earlier orders had attained finally as no changed situation had come into existence. A declaration was sought accordingly, the suit was contested by the petitioner. He maintained his stand that his land is located at the end of the square and as such the said order has been lawfully passed by the D.C.O. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court decreed the suit on 21-12-2002. Learned Additional District Judge, Okara dismissed the first appeal on 21-4-2003.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner. contends with reference to the cases "Muhammad Sultan and others v. Lab Din" (1976 SCMR 260) and "Saif ur Rehman, and others v. Rehmat Ali and others (1989 ALD 485), that the fact that earlier owner had sold the land to the contesting respondents was sufficient to be treated as a different or a new circumstance enabling the Canal Authorities to pass a fresh order in terms of Section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act. 1873. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, ' contends that it was not a simple matter of .amendment on "Warabandi". It is a case where prayer, for the same 'relief on the same grounds, had already been considered and the application was dismissed and so . , was the appeal and the order, having not been further challenged, had attained finality. Vehemently urges that no new circumstance within the meaning of law has been brought on record enabling the official respondents to pass new orders.

3. I have gone through the copies of the records appended with this C.R: with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have already reproduced above the respective pleading of the parties. There is no denial that earlier an application filed on the same ground i.e. the land being located at the end of the square, was dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed by the D.C.O. Second application was also filed on the same grounds. There is no plea and no evidence that any law or order situation is there or that there is some deficiently in water for. the land as, admittedly, the arrangement is going on for the last almost half century. This is evident .from a plain reading of the statement made by the petitioner as D.W.1. I have examined the said judgments, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and I do find that no new circumstance or what has been described as "difference" in the said judgment of this Court has been brought on record. The C.R. accordingly is dismissed but without any orders as to costs. H.B.T./U-4/L Revision dismissed.