' Through this Constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has sought for setting aside the impugned order dated 1-1-2004 passed by respondent No,1, being illegal, without lawful authority and without jurisdiction.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the instant Constitutional petition are that the petitioner is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 17-Kanals, 14 Marlas situated in Chak No,329/TDA,Tehsil Chaubara, District Layyah. The petitioner had established a Khal for his personal use on the northern side falling in Khasra No,22/10 and 1/1. Thereafter when the needful was done the same was dismantled by him whereupon respondent No,2 submitted an application to respondent No,1 for restoration of the same who on 1-1-2004 without holding any inquiry and taking preliminary steps restored the watercourse under section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 and passed the impugned order, hence this Constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned order passed by respondent No,1 is against law; that respondent No,1 was bound under section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 first of all to make an inquiry and after that pass the order; that the petitioner being a necessary party was not afforded opportunity of hearing, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. On the contrary the learned counsel for the respondent No,2 has strongly repelled the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that Khal in question is in existence and respondent No,2 is irrigating his land therefrom for the last more than 30 years, therefore, respondent No,1 was justified while passing the impugned order under section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent No,2 seems to be correct for the reason being that the land of respondent No,2 was being irrigated through the said Khal for the last 30 years and the petitioner was not justified while dismantling the same, therefore, respondent No,1 was justified while passing the impugned order. Be that as it may, the recourse to the petitioner was to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the redressal of his grievance as such the impugned order cannot be interfered in exercise of discretion in the instant Constitutional petition.
5. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to allow this petition which is hereby dismissed as having without substance.