Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 850 of 1982, decided on 20th April, 1982.

‑‑S. 32 (e)‑Water, supply of‑Petitioners purchasing land in 1976 not applying for regularisatton of water supply continued since 1962 On application by vendor sanction for supply of water cancelled Petitioners not entering into agreement with department as contem plated under S. 32 (e)‑Held, may apply for supply of water even at this stage and department to decide matter to accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to parties concerned.

C. M. Latif Rawn for Petitioners

This Constitutional petition is directed against the order dated 14‑10‑1980 whereby the sanction for the supply of ,irrigation water to the garden made in 1962 was cancelled.

2. The relevant facts briefly stated acre than the respondents had sanctioned water supply to the land in dispute containing garden thereon in 1962. By virtue of registered sale‑deed dated 29‑5‑1976 the property in dispute was alienated to favour of the petitioners and the supply of water continued even thereafter. It appears that the original owner (vendor) moved some application to the respondents for cancellation of water supply ;o the garden and the respondents who were not aware of the alienation of the disputed property in favour of the petitioners can celled the sanction of the water supply to the property in dispute.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that after the alienation of the land in dispute by means of registered sale‑deed mutation was also sanctioned in their names but the water supply had clandestinely been cancelled by the respondents.

4. The parawise comments received from the respondents, however, disclose that the extra water supply to the garden was sanctioned in the year 1962 in the name of Sardar Muhammad Suleman. The petitioners who are vendees of the disputed property did not apply for regulari sation of the sanctioned supply and on an application moved by the vendor the sanction for supply of water to the garden was cancelled.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that under section 32 (e) of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 an agreement for regularisation of the supply of water can be executed even at this stage by the petitioners with the department.

6. In view of the fact that the supply of water had continued to the garden siL4e 1962 and the petitioners after having purchased the property in 1976 did not enter into an agreement with the department as contem plated under the provisions of the afore‑mentioned Canal and Drainage Act, the petitioners may apply to the respondents even at this stage and the latter shall decide the matter in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

7. With this observation this petition stands disposed of.

M.Y.H. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.