' This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16th April, 1975 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabed upheld the decree dated. 17th March, 1973 of the trial Court and dismissed the appellant's suit.
2. Munshi plaintiff-appellant, being an owner of Square No, 24 had moved the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer for shifting the nakka from Killa No, 24/25 to Killa No, 5/6 stating that the site of the existing nakka was lower in level than his land to the result that his land could not properly be irrigated. The Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, after inspection of the level of the land, had by his order dated 8-9- 1971, sanctioned the change. Feeling aggrieved Ali Muhammad defendant-respondent filed an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer and the same was accepted on 23rd December, 1971.
Since the order dated 8th November, 1971 was set aside in appeal, the appellant therefore filed a suit for declaration that the order of the Divisional Canal Officer dated 23rd December, 1971 was illegal, without jurisdiction and unjust. He also asked for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from acting upon the impugned order. The suit was resisted by Ali Muhammad respondent who maintained that the appellant had been irrigating his land from the existing nakka at Killa No, 25 for the last 70 years and that he had never made any complaint ever since. The trial Court dismissed the suit apparently on the ground that the Divisional Canal Officer for reasons recorded by him in his order had exercised his powers in accordance with law without any malice towards the parties. For setting aside the order of the Divisional Canal Officer it was remarked by the trial Court that the Government instructions that a square ordinarily could not have more than one nakka, were rightly kept in mind by the Divisional Canal 1 Officer. The appellant went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge but with no success. It was held by him that the Divisional Canal Officer, while setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, had not acted illegally or with material irregularity, and that the said Officer had furnished full opportunity of hearing to the parties and had duly appraised their points of view. The appeal was consequently dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. Hence this second appeal.
3. It was argued that the respondent was not an aggrieved person, and he had therefore no locus standi to file an appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer. This argument has no force. It is laid down in section 68 (3) of the Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873) that any person aggrieved by an order made by such officer under subsection (2) may within 15 days of the passing of such order, prefer an appeal against the order to the Divisional Canal Officer. The map Exh. P. 1 would show that Square No, 24 belonging to the appellant for purposes of irrigation comes earlier than Square No, 19 belonging to the respondent. Therefore if any change of nakka takes place in Square No, 24, then it has naturally to affect the smooth running of water in Square No, 19.
The respondent on account of the change of nakka and disturbance in his irrigation was undoubtedly an aggrieved person. He had, therefore, a right to make an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer which he had successfully exercised.
4. I do not agree with the argument that the order of the Divisional Canal Officer was not self- contained. By saying so the learned counsel meant that the impugned order being based on no reasons was therefore liable to be set aside by the Civil Court. The order of the Divisional Canal Officer dated 23rd December, 1971 (Exh. P. 3) would indicate that both the parties as well as most of the proprietors of squares Nos. 19 and 24 were present before the Divisional Canal Officer and had expressed their unwillingness to the change allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, apparently for the reason that the change was likely to diminish the quantity of their water and thus harm their rights of irrigation. With reference to the Government instructions it was remarked by the divisional canal of certain at square could not have more than one nikah circumstances it could not be said that the order was based on no reasoning. The Divisional Canal Officer had jurisdiction to hear an appeal and set aside the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Canal Officer. If he had jurisdiction to decide the dispute, he also had jurisdiction to decide it rightly or even wrongly, and the Civil Court therefore was not empowered to sit in judgment over the order passed with jurisdiction by the Divisional Canal Officer. The learned lower Courts were, in the circumstances, justified in not interfering with it.
5. It was vainly argued that the statement of Muhammad Feroze P. W. 2 had been misread. It is true that the witnesses deposed that the site of the nakka was lower in level, and that the appellant's land could not be irrigated conveniently. Mere convenience of one person is no ground to put the majority of the irrigators to hardship. It is not necessary for the Courts to refer to each piece of evidence and discuss it. The statement of P. W. 2, in the circumstances of the case was not given much importance and an omission to take it into consideration and to discuss it does not amount to misreading of evidence. The entire situation of the land and the disputed nakka was given due weight to by the Divisional Canal Officer and he was of the opinion that an addition or a change of nakka from one place to another could result in great inconvenience to the respondent as well as the remaining owners of Square No,
19. Since the impugned order was passed with jurisdiction it was not liable to be set aside by the civil Court. Both the Courts below were therefore justified in holding that the impugned order had validly upset the order of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer.
6. For the reasons recorded above, I find no force in the appeal and the same is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.