JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, The dispute in this case is between the petitioners, on the one hand, and the private respondents (respondents Nos.4 to 11) on the other. The petitioners own land in Mouza Bochra Kohna, while the aforesaid respondents have their, land in Chak No.105/NB, Tehsil and District Sargodha. The land owned by both sides is being irrigated through Outlet No..19180/L from Rajbah Rodala.
2. According to the petitioners, as far back as 1959 the irrigation supplies to both sides were sanctioned at an intensity rating, of 75% in each case. However, actual supplies are being made to the petitioners-at the rate of 60% intensity. The petitioners, in the circumstances, applied to the Canal authorities for sanctioning of warabandi ensuring that they too received irrigation supplies at the rate of 75% intensity. The Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, vide order' dated 12-9-2005, and the Divisional Canal Officer, vide appellate order dated 21-12-2005 have determined that the petitioners were also entitled to irrigation supplies rated at 75% intensity. The warabandi on this basis has been sanctioned.
3. The respondents above mentioned have challenged the aforesaid orders of the Canal Authorities in a suit, which is pending adjudication before the trial Court at Sargodha. Along with their suit they have filed an application seeking interim injunction praying that the Canal Authorities be restrained from implementing their orders. The learned trial Court has allowed the application vide order dated 5-6-2006, which order has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court on 9-9-2006. Both orders have been impugned in the present revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has firstly argued that the Canal Authorities are competent and have the requisite expertise to make the determination, which they have done through the orders dated 12-9-2005 and 21-12-2005. He contended that the reasoning of the learned trial Court as set out in paragraph 4 of its order dated 5-62006 is fallacious because it loses sight of the fact that the respondents have no prima facie case in view of the determination made by the Canal Authorities through speaking orders after hearing both sides. Learned counsel further argued that the appellate Court has not even eared to examine the question as to whether the respondent had been able to establish a prima facie case.
5. On the above basis, it was argued that the impugned orders as depriving the petitioners of their rights to irrigation water and the same are also frustrating the implementation of orders passed of the Canal Authorities within the scope of their jurisdiction. On this basis it was argued that the impugned orders are not legally sustainable. In support of these contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the case titled Rehmat Wazir and others v. Sher Afzal and others (2005 SCM R 668).
6. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents was not in a position to controvert the above submissions. He merely referred to an order passed in 1998 by the S.D.O., whereby the intensity of supply to the petitioners was stated to be 60%. This order, however, has little bearing on the present case because the order dated 21-12-2005 has been passed by the Divisional Canal Officer after taking note of the respective contentions of the parties and after considering the order originally passed in 1959. The order, which was passed by the SDCO in 1998, had not taken into consideration the original order passed in 1959. In any event at the interlocutory stage the learned trial Court should have followed the pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case titled Rehmat Wazir and others v. Sher Afzal and others (supra)
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this revision petition is allowed. The orders dated 5-6-2006 and 9-9-2006 passed respectively by the learned trial Court and learned Appellate Court are, therefore, set aside. As a consequence, the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondents-plaintiffs is dismissed.