HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Muhammad Ismail son of Fateh Muhammad and 5 others through this Civil Revision Petition under section 115, C.P.C. Have assailed the orders dated 3-7-2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Layyah, by which he dismissed the application of the petitioners filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. The petitioners further assailed the order dated 27-8- 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Layyah dismissing the appeal of the petitioners filed against the said order dated 3-7-2009.
2. Precisely, necessary facts leading to the filing of this civil revision are that petitioner Muhammad Ismail etc., owners of land in Chak No,152-TDA, Tehsil and District Layyah, have been irrigating their lands from Outlet No,15400/R for so many years, The respondents Muhammad Akram etc., submitted an application to the Divisional Canal Officer, Layyah (for short 'DC0'), dated 24-4-2007 for change of Chakbandi alleging therein that they were feeling inconvenience in irrigating their lands from Outlet No,13790/R because of shortage of water and their lands being situated at a long distance from the said Outlet and thus they had to irrigate their lands from private tube-wells which process was very expensive and quite burdensome for the applicants/respondents and they requested that their lands be excluded, from Outlet No,13790/R and be included in Outlet No,15400.
On receipt of this application from the respondents Muhammad Akram etc, the D.C.0 issued notices under section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 to the affectees/the petitioners etc if the land of the respondents is included in Outlet No,15400, which were duly served to all the land owners legally to be affected with the change of the said Chak Bandi. The D.C.O after hearing the applicants-respondents and the affectees vide order dated 2-4-2008 changed the Chak Bandi of the respondents-defendants from Outlet No,13790/R to Outlet No,15400/R. Against the said order of the D.C.O the petitioners filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, Thal Canal Circle, Mianwali (for short "S.C.O") which was also dismissed on 26-3-2009 upholding the order passed by the D.C.O. The petitioners being aggrieved of the orders of the D.C.O and S.C.0 filed a declaratory suit assailing both the orders in the Civil Court Layyah praying that both the orders should be declared illegal and void and should not be implemented by the D.C.O. And SC .0.
3. Along with the main civil suit the petitioners-plaintiffs also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., praying for issuance of temporary injunction and restraining the Irrigation hierarchy from implementing the said orders, The learned Civil Judge, Layyah, vide order dated 3- 7-2009 dismissed the said application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. The appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Layyah, hence this civil revision.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the D.C.O. Had passed the impugned order dated 2-4-2008 without hearing the petitioners and others and included lands of the respondents for irrigation purposes in Outlet No,15400/R which lands earlier were being irrigated from Outlet No,13790/R, as such on account of this inclusion the lands of the petitioners and others will be badly affected. Further submitted that both the courts below wrongly and illegally dismissed the stay application of the petitioners, Further submitted that the learned trial Court did not apply its judicious mind and passed the mechanical order dismissing the application of the petitioner and gave no reason for that in the order. Submitted that the learned Additional District Judge also without applying his judicious mind to the facts of the case upheld the order of the trial Court vide judgment dated 3-7-2009
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently supported the orders passed by the officers of the Irrigation Department and the two orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned Additional District Judge in appellate jurisdiction contending that in such like cases the Canal Officers are the best Judges and their opinion/ decision with regard to the Chakbandi cannot be brushed aside unless there is some substantial flaw or illegality in the order passed by them. Submitted that both the courts below rightly dismissed the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.; there is no illegality or irregularity in both the orders assailed in this revision petition. Further submitted that the Canal Authorities widened the dimension of the Outlet No,15400/R after including the lands of the respondents in it and it will cause no harm or loss to the petitioners,
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the record produced by the representative of the Irrigation Department. The representative showed me the proceedings of the D.C.O. And the S.C.O. The D.C.O after hearing all the affectees of Outlet No,15400/R sanctioned the Chakbandi and gave full opportunity to the petitioners and others of being heard. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed an appeal before the S.C.O against the said order of the DCO and the said appellate authority did not favour the stand of the petitioners and upheld the order of the D.C.O. Representative of the Department stated before this Court that Outlet No,15400/R has been widened after inclusion of the lands of the respondents in the said Outlet. The irrigation of the lands of the petitioners-plaintiffs will not be affected by the Chakbandi made by the Canal/Officers,
7. Both the orders passed by the Canal Officers are well-reasoned and within the parameters of Canal and Drainage Act. The petitioners could not point out any illegality in the said orders, Further the learned trial Court and the learned Additional District Judge, Layyah rightly dismissed the application for. Temporary injunction filed by the present petitioners, There is no jurisdictional defect pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the orders passed by the two courts below. There are concurrent findings against the petitioners recorded by the two courts below which cannot be interfered with by this Court in revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. In the result, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.