' JAWWADKHAWAJA, J.---The petitioners are the PunjabProvince and its functionaries in the Irrigation Department. They impugn the order, dated 6-3-2006 passed by the learned Appellate Court, whereby the order of the learned trial Court, dated 20-2-2006 was set aside and, as a result, an application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed.
2. The case of the respondent-plaintiff, as set out in paragraph 2 of the plaint, is that he is entitled to draw irrigation water from a reclamation shoot in Rajbah No, 68295/R. The case of the Province is that no water for reclamation was sanctioned in favor of the respondent and, therefore, he was not entitled to draw water from any reclamation shoot. Furthermore, notification, dated 8-8-1997 was referred to whereby sanction of reclamation supplies of irrigation water was barred.
3. The learned Trial Court considering the available record dismissed the application but, as noted above, the learned Appellate Court has allowed the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent was not able to show any sanction of reclamation supplies to him and his application was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the learned Trial Court. In addition, the learned Law Officer referred to the rules and procedures governing the distribution of additional supplies of irrigation water the purpose of reclamation. It is clear therefrom that the area, which is found suitable for reclamation by the irrigation Department, can be given extra supplies of irrigation water for three years only. Only in exceptional cases, this period can be extended but only after prior approval of the Chief Engineer, which approval, according to the applicable policy, will not ordinarily be given.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on the written statement submitted by the petitioner. Province to state that the only objection taken therein is as to a shoot. This, however, does not appear to be a correct reading of paragraph 2 of the written statement wherein the Province has only admitted the correctness of paragraph 2 of the plaint to the extent that the respondent's land is being irrigated through Moga No,68295/R. As to the contents of the remaining para, it has been categorically stated that the same are false. In the circumstances, the only interpretation, which can be put on paragraph 2 of the written statement, is that the sanction of reclamation water to therespondent has not been admitted. Learned counsel for the respondent was asked to show if he was in possession of an order whereby reclamation had been sanctioned to the respondent. He was given time for this purpose. He could not produce an order showing that reclamation water was sanctioned by the Irrigation Department. However, he placed on record the reports prepared by the revenue functionaries on the respondent's application for additional water to reclaim his land. The report of the Patwari Reclamation merely confirms that the land in respect of which reclamation water is being sought, is in accordance with his field book. The report of the Ziladar Reclamation is to the effect that the aforesaid land is capable of reclamation. In this report, it has been certified that the land in question has not remained under reclamation for a period of three years or more. Lastly, the Ziladar has recommended that the land be included in the reclamation scheme.
5. Based on the above reports and a site inspection made by him, the Assistant Land Reclamation Officer has made his own recommendation that the land be included in the scheme. Although learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to produce any order whereby his land was included in a reclamation scheme, it can be safely assumed that this was done in the year, 1992 when the aforesaid reports were made by the Ziladar and the Assistant Land Reclamation Officer and a Warabandi reflecting additional reclamation supplies was made.
6. This, however, does not help the respondent because reclamation supplies are, by nature, temporary and are meant to enable a landowner to reclaim uncultivable land. Furthermore, as noted above, the reclamation policy of the Irrigation Department expressly stipulates that water will be supplied thereunder only for three years. Although there is a stipulation that this period may be enlarged, any such enlargement of time is exceptional and can only be made after the prior approval of the Chief Engineer. In the present case, the respondent has not been able to produce any order whereby his land was included in the reclamation scheme let alone an order passed by the Chief Engineer. It, thus, follows that even if reclamation supplies were sanctioned to the respondent in 1992, the sanction expired in 1995 at the latest.
7. In the foregoing circumstances, I find that the appellate order, dated 6-3-2006 is not legally sustainable. The same is, therefore, set aside. The result is that the dismissal of the respondent's application for temporary injunction by the learned trial Court is maintained.