Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.1171 of 1981, decided on 6th March, 1983

---S. 24--Watercourse Construction of--Acquisition of land--Question of change of source of irrigation to respondent decided more than once--Irrigation to respondent repeatedly found adequate--Case of acquisition of land for construction of watercourse also finally determined--Orders of Divisional Canal Officer had attained finality as they were not challenged at any stage--Matter having ale ly been decided more than once, held, could not be re-opened by Divisional Canal Officer, without any fresh dispute having been arisen.

Ch. Muhammad Hussain Jahania for Petitioners.

Rashid Murtaza Qureshi for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 6th March, 1983

The Divisional Canal Officer, Multan Canal Division, Multan has taken cognizance of a petition moved by Allah Ditta for additional supply of irrigation water. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved, have brought this writ petition on the ground that the matter had already been decided more than once and that the Divisional Canal Officer could not reopen the matter without any fresh dispute having arisen. 2. The brief history of the case is that Allah Ditta respondent No.2 moved an application on 12-7-1977 for changing his source of supply of water from outlet No. 8068/L to outlet No. 9912/L but this application was rejected on 4-5-1978. Allah Ditto took an objection before the Superintending Canal Officer against this order on 15--5-1978 and the Superintending Canal Officer remanded the case back to the Divisional Canal Officer on 8-12-1979 for considering the question of construction, after acquiring the land, for a new Khal. In pursuance of that order Allah Ditto made another application on 27-1-1980 before the Divisional Canal Officer. The Divisional Canal Officer, however, on 11-6-1980 found that the supply of irrigation water to Allah Ditto was adequate and there was no justification for acquiring land for a new watercourse. The petitioner did not challenge these orders at any stage but moved a third application before the Divisional Canal Officer on 19-7-1980 on the same ground. Certain correspondence took place between the Divisional Canal Officer and the Superintending Canal Officer with regard to this application and on 3-12-1980 the Superintending Canal Officer advised the Divisional Canal Officer to inform Allah Ditto that no further action can be taken on his application as he did not take any objection to the orders of the Divisional Canal Officer of 11-6-1980. The matter stood at this stage when the matter was brought to the notice of the Provincial Government through a delegation of Ulema on which the Secretary Auqaf Department wrote to Secretary Irrigation to look into the case. The Divisional Canal Officer thereafter has reopened the matter thus causing grievance to the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for Allah Ditta has argued that under section 24 of the Canal and Drainage Act there is no bar to acquisition of ally land for the purpose of construction of a watercourse. According to the learned counsel the Provincial Government can direct, at any stage the acquisition of land for the watercourse and the present proceedings before the I)ivsionnl ('anal Officer are, therefore, lawful. I am zrl'raid, there is no force in this argument. The question of change of source of irrigation to Allah Ditta has been decided more than once and it has repeatedly been held that the existing irrigation is adequate. The case of acquisition of land for construction of a watercourse was also finally determined on 11-6-1980 when the Divisional Canal Officer found no justification for it. These orders attained finality as they were not challenged at any stage. The intervention of the Provincial Government does not confer the Divisional Canal Officer with any fresh powers of review, the matter having already been determined more than once between the parties. In this case the first application moved by Allah Ditta was rejected on 4-5-1978, the second on 11-6-1980 and the third on 19-7-1980 which is now being revived by the Divisional Canal Officer even though on further reference the Superintending Canal Officer had also rejected it on 3-12-1980. The Divisional Canal Officer clearly has no authority to reopen the matter under these circumstances. In fact by reopening the matter he is causing harassment to the petitioner without any lawful authority. In view of the above considerations the writ petition is allowed with costs. H.B.T. Writ issued.