1. ' AAMER RAZA NAQVI, J.- Respondents have filed their comments which are taken on record. Copy has been supplied to Mr. Kansero. Mr. Farman Ali Kansero, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that watercourse has already been changed from 12-T Bego Minor to watercourse 6/9 Bego Minor. And therefore, such change cannot be recalled.
2. ' On the other hand Mr. Pathan, learned Asstt. A.-G. Submits on instructions that water course was recommended to be changed/transferred on peach (sic) at the request of petitioner. Along with such request no objection from the other Khatedars of area were also submitted. He further submitted that the said Khatedars have denied to have given any such no objection, therefore, the change of watercourse has not been effected.
3. ' The above contentions of the parties appear to be factual controversy which cannot be resolved in the present proceedings, particularly in view of section 91 (2) of Irrigation Act, 1879 wherein the procedure has been prescribed for change of sources of water supply. According to the said provision of law, it is the function of Canal Officer to see that which mode or way of supply of water is efficient for the purpose of distribution, and in case of any transfer of source of water supply from any existing watercourse to another a notice is to be given to the other Khatedars. In view of no objection submitted by the petitioner said notices were not served upon the holders of the land who might be affected by the change of watercourse. Without service of notice and hearing as required under section 91 of Irrigation Act, 1879 no change in watercourse can be effected.
4. ' In view of above facts and circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:--
(i) that the Canal Officer, respondents No,4 in present case, shall give holder or holders of the land likely to be affected a notice for the change of water course sought by the petitioner and shall pass orders after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to all concerned;
(ii) in case no settlement is arrived after such hearing, the parties shall be at liberty to avail remedy as provided in section 91 (2) (iii) of Sindh Irrigation Act, 1879.
5. ' With the above observations this Constitutional petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.